How Did The WTC Towers Fall So Easily?
Melting 110-Stories of
Steel and
Concrete in
just 57 MinutesHow did three huge skyscrapers
implode within :10 seconds or less?

WTC 7 Destruction, Madrid
Fire Are Keys To Unraveling 9/11

By Tim Watts

A Basic Understanding

Despite the
differing opinions and countless theories which have been discussed
and vehemently argued over concerning 9/11, one thing is painfully clear,
this
event was very well planned, with skilled military precision and
strategic execution. This wasa
daring
assault of
monolithic proportions, outrageous in its temerity. No matter
who was responsible, it was undeniably an orchestrated conspiracy.
That much is fact.

Whoever was
behind the planning was certainly no rookie. Clearly there was big
money behind the operation, but more importantly, there was quite
obviously a very high degree of skilled intelligence involved.
By that, I am referring to alphabet state intel.

Whether that intel was
foreign military or state sponsored, or merely a rogue splinter
faction, it was indeed a valuable key in
the success of the 9/11 attacks, an event which has become the
primary catalyst of constitutional change for the United States, but also
the pretext for war in the middle-east and North Africa.

The
sad, perverse irony in all of this is that the United States claims
to be bringing democracy to the many countries we've invaded, all the while it's
being taken from us here at home.

The epic horror and cold
brutality of this disaster, brought immediate public outcry, as well as a
united grief and an outflow of compassion that did briefly unify the
people momentarily, however, in just a short amount of time this infamous
event has now become a contentious boiling point for many in the international community,
while at the same time forming an indisputable divide among Americans.

Where We Are Now

Clearly the most
acrimonious division has formed among
the people of the United States. You either believe the government
theory or you don't. If you should choose to recognize an
alternative theory for 9/11, contrary to the official version, you are the
one that is labeled as the conspiracy theorist, even though the
government's version is perhaps much harder to believe than many
of the alternative explanations.

There are still some who are, for
whatever reason, either ambivalent or indifferent on the issue,
however, the overall mass perceptions that exist today appear to be
firmly entrenched and thus have become quite divisive. Many of these
perceptions have been manufactured and nurtured by a non-inquisitive
media that complicitly parrots the official government version.
Those who resist that narrative are those who have explored
alternative media and performed independent research on their own.
It essentially comes down to coerced opinions versus learned
opinions.

There are essentially
three primary camps of thought that are being argued about regarding
the 9/11 issue:

The 9/11 plot that
totally defeated numerous airport security checks, World Trade
Center security & surveillance systems, FBI and CIA intelligence
services, all active NORAD military defense measures, as well as local built in
Pentagon defense mechanisms... was meticulously coordinated and
executed by
Osama bin Laden and his band of Al Qaeda terrorists. This is the DKIWH theory, Didn't Know It Would Happen.

The 9/11 attacks
were learned of by some U.S. officials who were warned early on by intel
from many countries, but who chose instead to sit on that
information, using the opportunity as a new Pearl Harbor, in
order to engage in preemptive wars of
aggression in the middle-east and North Africa, by being complicit regarding the
attacks, if not odiously helping to facilitate them in order to
justify their wars of imperialism. This is the LIHOP theory,
Let It Happen On Purpose.

The 9/11 event was
orchestrated and deliberately engineered solely by rogue government
intelligence services, using the the alleged hijackers as mere
patsies in the plot. The impetus for such
a false flag operation include the spoils from scenario two, but with the
primary objective being the enactment of a world-wide police state, the
dissolution of the United States, and the emergence of the long
planned new world order. This is the MIHOP theory, Made It
Happen On Purpose.

Out of the three outlined
scenarios above, there appear to be two distinctive theories that emerge. One, that the U.S. government was innocently
or ignorantly caught by surprise and totally bungled the defense of
the country. The other is, whether exploited or heinously engineered, a rogue
faction of our government explicitly used the event for its own nefarious
agenda.

That's about as mixed as
you can get on the topic, and that's clearly not a good thing for
getting at the truth. As a result, this has divided people into two
camps, those that naively trust and believe the government
explanation of 9/11, versus those who have methodically explored the evidence and
do not believe the official story.

From an analytical point of view, one thing is obvious in looking at these two
divided factions; one of the two groups has been exposed to both
sides of the story, while one absolutely refuses to look.

As a result of this
dichotomous contrast and its resulting contentious debate, both sides vehemently resist the other, if not
wholeheartedly
resent the other. This contention, along with its deeply impassioned emotion, is
often rooted with a strong patriotic underscore from both sides,
making the issue quite divisive and socially volatile.

So the question is, how
do we move on from where we are now?

We were all shown
those awful events that
day, repeatedly, as they played over and over again on our
televisions. Each and every one of us saw with our own eyes the
catastrophic events as they unfolded that day, albeit through a
construed media lens.

Like
everything else in life, our
current perceptions of 9/11 have been carefully formed and coerced,
if not outright manipulated, through an
openly gullible trust of our corporate news media. We all saw the
attacks with our own
eyes, yet we have continually been bombarded by a complicit media
to buy into an official story that arguably has more glaring holes
and inadequacies than
any of the so-called conspiracy theories. It is often argued that
the real conspiracy theory is the government's official version.

The
government wants you to believe: That 19 men, divided
into four groups, not armed with guns or explosives, but with mere
simple box-cutters, were able to bypass security at three major
airports, overwhelm the crew and passengers of four airplanes
despite being greatly outnumbered, fly the planes with little or no
piloting skills, easily defeating well structured long standing U.S.
air defense systems, skillfully steering three of the mammoth
jetliners unabated into their designated targets, crumbling the twin
towers in a near free fall fashion into their own footprints in ten
seconds or less, while also striking the Pentagon, the most secure
structure within the most guarded airspace in the entire world,
which was somehow left undefended, even after declaring that
America was already under attack over half an hour (:34 minutes),
before it was hit by a plane that had its transponder off for :41
minutes! There was no intercept of that obvious hijack, nor either
of the New York flights which had transponders off for :26 and :17
minutes respectively. The military tried to muster an air
defense, but just couldn't get there in time.

Those searching for a
more reasoned explanation suggest: That a rogue group of high
ranking government individuals, with complete control and unfettered
access to Federal aviation systems and U.S. military operations,
either exploited an uncovered terrorist plot, or engineered a false
flag operation of their own, to attack symbolic targets in the
country, all of which held beneficial side gain to U.S. officials
from either their substantial wealth resources, or else crucial
incriminating records that needed to be destroyed, all conveniently
contained within the targets, all the while initiating an environment
of fear and panic that could be used to consolidate government power through
the restriction of rights, while enabling an excuse for unprovoked
wars that immediately benefit the military industrial complex, the
corporate elite, and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century),
the latter which penned a document in September of 2000 entitled
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," which openly talked of
a new Pearl Harbor in order to
facilitate its agenda.

While both plots may be
hard to conceive, the fact of the matter is, the last one outlined
is arguably much easier to achieve, due to the overwhelming number
of PNAC members that were strategically positioned in key government
seats of power. A neo-con mechanism was clearly enabled within
the Bush-Cheney administration that possessed the ability to
implement strategy and achieve the goals set forth by the PNAC. (See
more on the PNAC's access to power further in this article.)

Some are understandably
scared to look at an alternative theory, afraid of having their
world upset with a national revelation too ugly for them to
personally bare, or fearful of being denounced as "being against
us," thus being accused of not supporting the country, but for
others, a search for the truth is the only recourse in dealing with
an event of such horrific destruction and cold-blooded mass murder.

Never being one to wait
for an epiphany from the media, I began this exploration in search
of answers that every single American has the right to know. What
really happened on September 11th, 2001 that caused our politicians
to change the world around us so much?

An Unwanted Journey

In all honesty, this long,
arduous journey of discovery began,
not quite so willfully, on 9/11, as TV network after network
re-racked the video footage of the World Trade Center destruction, over and
over and over. It was all so hard to believe at the time, let
alone to accept the odds that not one tower would fall, but two!
Unbeknownst to many at the time, and even still many people today, a third
WTC tower, not hit by an airplane, would also implode
into dust later on that afternoon, in
exactly the same fashion.

Three steel and
concrete buildings all collapsing in similar fashion on the same
day, allegedly from fire, all for the first time ever in
history.

This is red flag number one.

The other significant
happening was that all towers fell so quickly,
in like-fashion, at essentially near free-fall speed. All
three of them.

Red flag number two.

These oddities of WTC
buildings one, two and seven are obviously the foremost stunning and
remarkable aspects to this horrible event, yet the fact remains that
all buildings did the impossible, literally falling right
through their own structural core, where the most resistance should
have come from, yet all the buildings fell with little or
no resistance at all. With the laws of physics in mind, it was
very hard for many to comprehend the very short time duration in
which each building imploded, especially when this had never
ever happened before in the history of high-rise buildings and
modern architecture.

On the day of 9/11, using a stopwatch and
calculating the height and number of floors, it was readily apparent that the speed of
implosion
was roughly nine or ten seconds for each 110 story tower. That was
physically impossible, unless of course there were bombs mined
inside the building, which is of course exactlythe
type of reports that we initially heard from eyewitnesses and the
news media that day, immediately following the destruction. Some
feel there may have been more than just explosives. We will explore
that later.

WTC maintenance worker
William Rodriguez, a hero from 9/11 who personally saved many people
on his own, testified that he heard huge explosions coming
from sub-level basement (B-2) of the towers, yet his eyewitness
testimony was completely disregarded by the 9/11 Commission.

New York Housing Authority
Barry Jennings also testified about huge explosions taking place,
but perhaps more interestingly, his account was of World Trade
Center building 7, one of the structures not hit by an airplane.
His testimony was also ignored by the 9/11 Commission in their final
report.

The fact is, there were numerous
broadcasts from the various news networks that day with eyewitness
reports of bombs going off in both towers one and two,
as well as seven. An initial thought of many was that this must
clearly be the explanation for the towers quick and rapid descent.
Somehow these explosions had to be connected to the towers demise. It was the only way to
explain the extraordinary speed in which each building imploded.
Dan
Taylor and Peter Jennings of ABC, Dan Rather at CBS and Aaron Brown from CNN all
claimed it looked like controlled demolition.

As time went on though,
that was not the official story that was disseminated
to the media. The official storyline given was that the buildings had
collapsed from structural degradation due to the impact from the
airplane attacks and the ensuing brief fires. To many, this
did not seem right. Never had a steel structured skyscraper ever
collapsed due to fire.

What about the eyewitness
reports of explosions? Surely they had to play a role. Surely the
NIST investigators had missed something.

Stories surfaced of a
group of middle-eastern looking men that were seen videotaping the WTC towers as
they imploded, all the while cheering as the buildings came down.
We were all shocked with the destruction, but this group was
apparently not
surprised in the least. Instead, they seemed to be anticipating the
implosions. Later on they would testify that they were merely there
to record the event.

So how did they know?

Accounts have also
surfaced from others, commenting days before 9/11, that the towers
would not be standing much longer.

Coupled with the
eyewitness reports of bombs going off in all three World Trade
Center towers, these well documented accounts have certainly not set
well with those who are familiar with them, raising many legitimate
questions.

Even more disturbing is
the fact that the official story listed fire as the
suspected cause of the destruction, with no real investigation into any
possible covert demolition scenario. This was hard to take for those
who openly testified about the numerous huge explosions that they heard
and felt that day.

At the time it seemed readily apparent,
to a few people at least, that foreign nationals had somehow circumvented our security
and were able to place hidden explosive charges within the WTC buildings
to facilitate their demise. That's exactly what Ramzi Yousef did in
the first World Trade Center plot back on February 26th, 1993,
with the help of FBI agents. So, after 9/11, it seemed perfectly logical to conclude that this
time the terrorists were somehow successful.

The foremost goal going
into this research was to prove that foreign terrorists had somehow
infiltrated into World Trade Center security, facilitating a
successful demolition of the WTC towers, realizing a plan initially
fostered by Yousef in '93, a plausible scenario much more consistent
in explaining the events as they happened on 9/11.

And with that, a daunting
quest for the truth was underway. It was hard to fathom all three
towers falling so quickly, at very near free fall speed. Surely the
bomb explosions had to be the key component.

So, in this patriotic inspired and altruistic effort, I set about my
naive investigative journey. In
the course of those efforts, a Pandora's box of information was
opened that this author was not quite prepared for, nor overly
willing to reconcile with, yet facts are facts and they need to be
admitted and acknowledged for what they are, no matter how
uncomfortable they might be.

The inordinate amount of
highly suspicious, questionable reports and absurdly bizarre
coincidences may be extremely difficult to fathom and accept, but at the
same time, they are very much still plausible and thus they serve as an
accountable explanation that should not be easily dismissed, nor
discounted out of hand.

Truly the most difficult aspect of this
journey has come from trying to assess and resolve the numerous
unexpected and undesirable heretical insights that have arisen over
the course of this research. Many deeply troubling reality-check
confrontations came forth, all of which challenged personal
paradigms, and subsequently led to some very unsettling and
controversial questions regarding the attacks of September 11th,
2001.

There came a point when the epiphany was
blatant, undeniable and most unsettling to admit to, but the obvious
facts were too glaring to refute, staring me right in the face. That
was a pretty low day for me.

Taking The First Step

One
of the hardest things for many to understand about 9/11 is... how
is it that the World Trade Center towers all fell so easily?

For many it's a moot
point, not even worth the time to consider. After all, the 9/11
Commission already met and thoroughly investigated the whole
thing... right?

Wrong.

The 9/11 Commission did not
even bother to look into the World Trade Center building 7 destruction, let alone write anything about
it in their final report. So If you think that America has
sufficiently entertained all the facts on 9/11, you would sadly enough be quite mistaken. Those that
have studied the numerous inconsistencies and peculiar coincidences
of 9/11 have arrived at a strangely different conclusion than the
official government line on the attacks.

How do you get two camps
of diverse opinion on a public event that happened on live television for
all the world to see? The dichotomy exists because many have refused
to look further into the data from that September day and have instead blindly
swallowed the feeble government explanation of what allegedly took
place.

For those who have taken
the time to investigate the 9/11 facts, they now form the resolute
contrast of objectivity in a controversial debate that continues to
grow in the U.S. as well as the international community. The world
in general is far more mistrusting regarding the official U.S. story
and the events of 9/11 than most Americans.

Despite whichever poll you
look at, a majority of Americans are very unsatisfied with the
official government story on what really happened on 9/11.

A damning
2006 CBS /
NewYork Times poll actually found that an astounding 81-percent
of Americans felt the U.S. government is not telling the real story
about 9/11.

Telling the
truth 16%

Hiding
something 53%

Mostly lying
28%

Not sure 3%"

This is a staggering
number of people (81%) who do not buy the lie, despite concerted efforts
by the corporate media and assorted paid mouthpieces,
such as Popular Mechanics, to discredit the 9/11
truth movement.

One year later, a
2007 Zogby
poll, found that over half of Americans, at that time, were
actively calling for a new investigation of 9/11. That's roughly
155-million people that are unhappy with the findings of the 9/11
Commission.

These are startling numbers,
despite the fact thatsince 9/11, our nation has been
incessantly brow-beaten by the administration into believing that
it's unpatriotic to question the actions of our political
leadership during this so called "war on terror."

Immediately following
9/11, most Americans followed along and were good little lemmings
that simply didn't bother to reconcile the myriad oddities,
incongruities, and unbelievable
improbabilities that make up this disturbingly sordid, clandestine
event. Sadly enough, many still don't truly realize that so many
alarming conflicts with the official story exist. For those who have
spent time doing the research, looking into the evidence and
eyewitness accounts, the facts of the event are undeniably
disturbing.

It's time for the rest of America to
consider the reality of what actually happened on 9/11. If the
questions brought forth in this article don't raise an eyebrow, or
percolate the smallest amount of suspicion regarding the actual
presentation of the 9/11 facts, then you have no reason to fear
because your paradigm is safe.

For those that are able to grasp and
understand the seemingly implausible scenario of that tragic
eleventh day of September, your new reality may become rather
unsettling, to say the very least.

A New
Perspective

For the moment, please forget
what the government has already told you about that fateful day in 2001.
Forget what the corporate media has ingrained into your brain regarding box
cutters and terrorists flunking out of flight school. Instead, open
your mind to the evidence and basic facts, and for just once, entertain and try
to reconcile the numerous oddities and unbelievable
coincidences of those awful attacks.

While there is a rather
voluminous list of questionable coincidences and unbelievable
occurrences from 9/11 to address, this article will attempt to focus
on just some of the most glaring facts and peculiar circumstances from
that horrible tragedy.

Please, consider the following points before
letting some within our government tell you their version of what happened that
terrible day. Get the facts that the media have been too timid to
talk about or put in print before you form an
absolute opinion of what really happened on 9/11.

Click picture for larger image

Where's
the Fire?

The official government
explanation is that the towers were greatly ravaged and weakened by
the intense fires, however, the fires in the WTC
never swept through the lower floors of either tower, nor were they
ever
that intense, at least for no more than maybe 10 to 20 minutes,
tops!
The major fire source was from the jet fuel that actually burned off very quickly. The jet fuel on its own is reportedly
incapable of producing fire temps exceeding 1120 Celsius. That is not
hot enough to bring down the WTC towers, contrary to the
scientifically challenged official report.

Neither building was rampant with widespread fire.
There was no top-to-bottom burning of either building, so how could
the lower structural supports have been weakened so badly, as has
been claimed?

The second plane to hit
that morning lost most of its fuel outside WTC tower 2 in a
tremendous fireball witnessed by everyone who saw it live on TV.

So what then was able
to allegedly ignite an entire 110-story skyscraper, in less than
one
hour?

Two Before One?

Regarding WTC 2, the second
tower hit that morning, a building with far
less airplane fuel inside- why did it implode almost a full half hour before
WTC 1, the tower that was actually hit first? How does that happen?
The building exploded and dropped directly into its own footprint at 9:59am, with WTC 1
falling at 10:28am.

WTC 1 was hit first at
8:45 by American Airlines flight 11. It burned for 45 minutes longer than WTC 2, which was hit last
at 9:03 by United Airlines flight 175. With
most of the jet fuel visibly exploding outside tower number 2 in the initial
fireball, what then could have possibly caused a heat source so hot
inside that
could permeate 110-stories in only :57 minutes and drop the entire
structure, even though no high-rise before it in modern history had ever been dropped by
fire?

Not once. Absolutely never.

Yet WTC 2 burned
ONLY :57 MINUTES and we're
expected to believe the building code of New York doesn't call for
better construction than that? Again, it burned for merely :57
minutes. Barely the length of your favorite TV show.

Fact: Both WTC tower fires
burned a very short time. New York firefighters are on record as
saying the fires were "contained" and could be managed. Most
all of the
major fires were already burning out when the buildings
imploded.

Question: With
only sparse fires remaining at the WTC, how was the building so hot that it would thoroughly
compromise the mammoth steel girders, the thick cement slab
flooring, and overall structural integrity of a 110-story
buildingin just :57 minutes?

Think about that for a
moment. Let that miracle of nature sink in for just a moment. Not
ten stories or twenty stories or even 40 stories in one hour, but ONE HUNDRED TEN stories of concrete and steel and
literally tons of fire proof asbestos... in a mere :57
minutes!

That's a pretty tough
thing to do when there were no major fires underneath the
78th floor to undermine the integrity of the building.

The official story would have you
believe the fire was able to sweep rampantly and freely throughout
all floors. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Secondly, the World Trade Center had
fire-proofing between all floors, as well as the mandatory fire
sprinkler system to help control a possible fire and thus prevent it from
getting out of control. Again. the buildings had literally tons of
asbestos surrounding the support beams and interior infrastructure. These buildings were
designed and engineered
to contain a fire and not let it spread out of control, most
specifically from floor to floor.

Arguing Physics

To help its case with
the World Trade Center destruction, some in the
US government have argued after 9/11 that the melting point of steel
is
2,500 degrees F. To the contrary, many scientists have come forward to argue that the
temperature needed to melt a steel alloy is actually closer to 2,800 F,
300 degrees
hotter than the government claim.

What becomes clear out
of this is that there is obviously a group within the government
with a vested interest in arguing for the lower temperature. They want
people to accept the lower temperature extreme so that their
official explanation for the WTC towers falling is plausible and has
some scientific basis.

However, as the
temperature argument continued, a key event took place in Madrid,
Spain which soon gave weight to the scientific communities' higher temperature claim,
and at the same time dealt a serious blow to the lower
temperature official WTC crash
theory.

The
Madrid Windsor Fire

The Madrid, Spain Windsor
high-rise fire
made Irwin Allen's "Towering Inferno" look like a small
birthday candle. This building burned arguably hotter for a much
longer duration than any high-rise building in history. (see gallery below)

The Windsor building in
Madrid had no sprinkler system, unlike the WTC towers. As a matter of fact, at the
time of this monstrous blaze, the entire building was shut down for repairs, to
actually retrofit the building with a fire safety sprinkler system.
So unlike
the WTC towers, this building had nothing to keep it from getting
very hot. It burned as a raging inferno for all the world to
watch for 21 hours continuously!

The Comparisons

BUILDING FIRE

BURN TIME

BUILDING STATUS

WTC
1 North tower 8:45am

15-20 minutes

Fell
in :09 seconds 10:28am

WTC
2 South tower 9:03am

15-20 minutes

Fell
in :10 seconds 9:59am

Madrid
Windsor tower

1,260
minutes (21 hours!)

Still
standing after the fire!

WTC 2 stood for only :57 minutes
before collapsing to the ground at phenomenal speed, in ten seconds.
Tower one lasted 102 minutes before giving way. Yet the Windsor
tower in Madrid, Spain raged for a staggering 21 full hours, top to
bottom, and it never fell.

Only a smaller portion
of a few of the upper floors
of the Madrid Windsor building dropped on top of each other, much like they claim
happened on 9/11, yet mysteriously the far hotter Madrid Windsor building did not begin
a cascading "domino effect" of floors collapsing under the fallen weight,
as happened with the WTC.

Most importantly, after
21 hours of super-hot blast furnace inferno conditions that clearly
far exceeded those of 9/11, there was no exploding or
pulverized concrete
from the Madrid tower, as was the case with the WTC.

As the Windsor fire
reached the scientific community's claimed melting point, the steel girders actually
did start to become malleable and bend. Girders are seen curling up
at the ends in many photos, yet the building never fell. (see Madrid Windsor
gallery above)

It would seem apparent,
according to the evidence from the Madrid fire, that the scientific
temperature claim for melting a steel alloy is indeed correct. The
features of the Madrid fire are undeniable proof that this
raging inferno was indeed much hotter than the WTC.

Over 21 hours later,
the fires were finally put out and the building was still standing.

Still standing?!

Burning Questions

Shouldn't a fire as
intense as that in Madrid have dropped the building, just the same as
the WTC towers allegedly fell on 9/11? The fire burned far hotter
andeasily twenty one times longer.

How is it the fire
burned so hot in the first place? Some officials have questioned how
anything inside the building could have fueled the fire to have
burned so hot.

Many have suggested
that an accelerant was used in the Madrid building to fuel the fire
temperatures to the extremes that occurred. Again, that may sound far
fetched, but then how do you explain the two men going from floor to
floor in the middle of a raging inferno?

That's right, a couple
videotaped the fire from a neighboring building and caught images of
two people moving about. What were they doing inside the shut down
Windsor building during this raging inferno?

A case could be
made that someone or some group deliberately set the Madrid Windsor building ablaze in an attempt
to discredit the U.S. government's official explanation for the
destruction of the WTC towers on 9/11. That may seem a bit extreme and
almost far fetched, but when you consider what is currently at stake
in the world as a result of 9/11, the improbable suddenly becomes
plausible.

The two biggest
questions surrounding the blaze are...

How did it begin?

Who were the people
inside, seen moving from floor to floor?

Is it possible that a
foreign intelligence service was behind the blaze, in an attempt to
disprove the US explanation for the World Trade Center destruction?

The alternative of
course is to accept the event as just another of the myriad peculiar
and timely coincidences that we have been urged to discount and
disregard in order to buy the absurd convenience that appears to
have been made exclusive to the official 911 explanation.

How Hot Was It?

The Madrid fire was originally reported at its peak to be
a scorching 1500 Celsius! That is 2,732
degrees Fahrenheit and is very close to the 2,800 degrees that the scientific
community
claims is necessary to melt a steel alloy. This would be directly
contrary to the official government claim of the lower melting point
temperature of steel.

Immediately, the day
after the blaze, the original fire temperature that was reported
during the fire's peak was drastically reduced to nearly half
of
what had been officially reported the day before. (1500 Celsius to
800 Celsius.) That's undeniably a huge drop in heat.

Why the sudden change
and the huge
disparity in temperature?

If the Madrid building could burn so hot and yet still be standing
when it was over,
an argument could be made that there must be a flaw in the U.S.
explanation for the WTC destruction. If those hotter temperatures are kept at the
original 1500 Celsius, the government has a serious problem with
its scenario of 9/11 because the Madrid Windsor tower was not
falling down like the U.S. government said it should under
temperatures far more extreme than the WTC.

Question:
Why didn't the Windsor building thoroughly melt and implode in the
first hour or two like the WTC?

The Windsor building
should have dropped, beyond any shadow of a doubt... that is,
if you buy into and believe the official government argument on
the questionably low melting point of a steel alloy.

Remember, after 9/11
the U.S. government argued that the melting point of steel was 2,500
degrees F. That debate has fermented ever since in order for the
powers that be to argue that, even though the buildings were not
physically that hot, there was feigned scientific reasoning, jaded
as it was, to support the destruction theory under a lesser
temperature. The scientific community has long since argued that the temperature needed to melt a
steel alloy is actually closer to 2,800 F.

So, if the original Windsor fire
temperature is left to stand at 1500 C, or 2,732 F, as it was
originally reported,
that is 232 degrees hotter than the reported U.S. government claim
of 2,500 F for the melting point of steel, as they argued in their
WTC 9/11 explanation. The obvious point here is that the Windsor
should have toppled easier than any of the WTC towers, but it
didn't.

According to the U.S.
temperature claim, the Windsor should have literally melted
since the fire was a roaring 232 degrees higher than the government's own
alleged benchmark for the melting point of
steel.

Now ask yourself,
according to the apparent evidence from both fires, who was
right about the melting point of a steel alloy, the U.S. government
or the scientific community?

If the government is
proven wrong on the true melting point of steel alloy girders, this would undeniably contrast the
administration's position and the official 9/11 explanation of the
seemingly effortless and very questionable dropping of the WTC
towers.

The crux of the matter
in question is this... why did the Madrid Windsor tower withstand
much hotter temperatures for twenty-onetimeslonger duration and yet was still standing afterwards?

This
immediately begs the question: How did a lesser fire in New
York drop two larger
buildings in a scant fraction of the burn time, with much less
heat
and ferocity?

That, in a nutshell, blows the entire U.S. government explanation out of the water
for why the WTC towers imploded so easily. If the WTC towers could
implode with very little fire and much less heat in less than an
hour, why didn't the Windsor itself drop when it was clearly
much hotter and burned undeniably farlonger than the WTC?

And that is the
trillion-dollar question in all of this, because this event
was used as the basis of an attack on two countries, the start of an
all-out Mid-East war, an attack on people's rights worldwide, and the
usurping of the US Constitution. The horrific event of 9/11 is unarguably the
infamous trigger for all that has been forced upon the world since
2001.

So which building do you think was hotter,
the
Madrid Windsor building or New York WTC?

Whether 1500 Celsius or not,
the Madrid building
undeniably far eclipsed the WTC towers in fire and heat. Look
at the damn pictures for crying out loud. You don't need a
thermometer to see that the Madrid building fire was clearly waaaay hotter
than the WTC. Use your eyes and your God-given brain and decide for
yourself.

So why didn't the Windsor
tower in Spain fall, as the WTC towers so easily fell on 9/11?

Similarities
And Improbabilities

It's interesting to
note that the WTC in New York and the Windsor building in Madrid
were both of late 60s / early 70s design and engineering. The Madrid
building even had an inner concrete core for stability, very much
like the WTC towers. There are some basic similarities between the
WTC and the Madrid Windsor building.

But somehow we're left
to try and understand why TWO buildings, with working
sprinkler systems and built in fire-walls between floors, buildings that were clearly not anywhere close
to as hot as the building in Madrid, Spain, BOTH imploded in :57 minutes and :102
minutes
respectively.

When you add in the WTC
7 destruction later that afternoon, that makes three steel
structure high-rise buildings
in one day that allegedly fell due to fire for the first
time ever in history!

Wow.

First off, what are the odds
of a steel frame high-rise building dropping for the first time ever in
modern history due to fire?

Secondly, what are the odds
of that
happening to three steel frame high-rise buildings for the first time ever... all in
one day?

Whatever those odds
are, they would most certainly break any bank in Vegas, many times
over.

Meanwhile, another
high-rise building
that was indeed much hotter was able to burn uncontrollably, with
no
building sprinkler system at all, for over 21 straight hours, and yet
was still standing when it was over.

Double-wow.

Actually, it's more
like, unbelievable!

But how could this be?

For those that may be
trying to keep track, or should be, that's 1,260 minutes of burn time
for the Windsor building, which figures out to 1,203 minutes longer
burn
than WTC 2 and 1,158 minutes longer burn than WTC 1. And once again, the
Madrid building clearly burned at a much higher temperature
than either building in New York.

The
China BTCC Fire

The Windsor fire wasn't
the only high-rise building to burn hotter and longer than the WTC
and still not fall. In February of 2009 the Beijing BTCC building
caught fire and also burned like a raging inferno, long past the
burn-time of WTC towers one, two or seven.

The 44-story structure,
just three floors smaller than World Trade Center building 7, was
under construction and near completion when allegedly set fire due
to a new year's fireworks display. The blaze roared through the
building for
over six hours, longer than WTC 1 or 2, yet the
structure did not topple into a cataclysmic free fall as those in
New York did on 9/11, despite its top-heavy angular design.

So now we've had two
high-rise fires since September 11th, 2001, both burning
indisputably hotter and far longer, yet neither building
imploded. Each building burned from top to bottom, unlike WTC 1 or
2, yet neither dropped within 57-minutes or even 103-minutes. Each
building was totally consumed with fire throughout. Both of the
buildings withstood the far greater fire damage and intense heat and
were still standing when the fires were eventually put out.

As a point of fact, no
steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire in the
history of high-rise structural engineering, not before or after
9/11. There have been many historical high-rise fires, but none of
the buildings has ever collapsed. All of these fires burned far
longer and much hotter than the WTC buildings. Some of these fires
consumed the entire building all at once, with flames leaping out 30
feet from the buildings, yet all of them were still standing once
the fires were out.

Numerous high-rise
fires that all burnedmuch longer and way
hotter than the World Trade Center, yet not one building
collapse from any of them. (except the WTC towers in red)

How is this possible,
considering the feeble explanation given for the total destruction of
THREE high-rise buildings on 9/11?

So
Why Did Only The WTC Buildings Fall?

Why didn't the
upper floors of the WTC just simply collapse on top of the building,
rather than cascade all the way down in total destruction, without
showing any physical resistance, nor any loss of momentum and speed?

Parts of the
upper floors of the Windsor did fall, however the
building below it held just fine, unlike the World Trade Center
towers.

If anything, the
WTC buildings should have only fallen down to the crash impact
portions of the towers, rather than fail completely, falling to the
ground in a finely pulverized pile of concrete dust. Not surprising
to most building architects and structural engineers, buildings are
built to actually resist collapse, not facilitate it.

Believe it or
not, tall buildings are built with airliners and disaster in mind.
They are not built to fall apart quickly. Our building
standards are certainly much higher than that, contrary to what some
would have us believe.

Many argue that the
structure of the WTC towers was compromised due to the plane strikes
and that is the reason they fell.
According to the people who built the towers, nothing could be
farther from the truth. The building was designed by engineers to
withstand multiple large airliner hits. (see video below)

Was the WTC really as hot as
officials have led us to believe? The woman below sure knew. She's
standing right where the plane went through the building.

So how hot was it?

There were fires above
and just below, but from all appearances the area you would think
was hottest, the hole where the airplane
entered the building and dumped its load of fuel, was actually okay to stand in.

A woman
identified as
Edna Cintron stands in the airplane crash hole of WTC 1.

In 2004, an intrepid
employee of Underwriters' Laboratories called into question the
official account of the towers destruction. Kevin Ryan of Underwriters' Labs wrote a letter to Mr. Frank Gayle
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which
questioned the official collapse explanation. Underwriters' Labs is
the company of record that certified the steel components used in
the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

What could possibly be
in those audio tapes that someone wanted kept secret? Hmmm... what
about the possibility that there were no horrendous infernos
sweeping from floor to floor, as reported in the official WTC
destruction theory?

Reports claim
that firemen inside the WTC were heard saying that the fires were
manageable and
could be brought under control.
According to them, there were only a few small fires reported and
none were described as raging out of control.

In the 911 dispatch
audio the firemen do not sound as if there are rampant fires raging
throughout the WTC. One firemen on his way up even asks to be
informed when they finally see fire. Odd for a building that
was allegedly raging with enough fire to drop a 110-story building in less
than an hour.

Again, the only floor reported with any fire
is the 78th floor where there are two reports that describe
it as being two isolated pockets of fire, able to be knocked
down by only two lines. Two separate firemen radio this in
and confirm it. Only two lines needed to put it out! That
hardly sounds like a building consuming, steel girder melting and
concrete pulverizing fire, does it?

Once again, very strange for an alleged inferno raging
out of control.

If the buildings
were so hot, how were the firemen able to move effortless up from
the lower levels of the building to the upper levels with no regard
for any intense heat? Simple, because there
wasn't any fire and that's the real reason the tapes were classified in
the first place.

The tapes prove, through the firemen's own on-scene
reports, that any claim of the towers allegedly melting
from internal fires is undeniably and clearly an unsupportable
claim.

All floors reported
below the 78th floor curiously seem to be free from any structure
threatening, raging infernos. Listen and see for yourself through
the links below.

Additionally, the firemen had also made reports of other explosions
going off inside the buildings, prior to their destruction. If indeed
this is the case, as many have testified to, it would most likely
have a major impact on the official version of why the World Trade
Center towers imploded.

Why were there numerous
large explosions being heard and felt by eyewitnesses? Many reports
were originally aired once, but never repeated nor followed up on by
the networks.

The
Lobby Explosion

What was it that blew
the lobby out and caused some people to be set on fire? The official
story says that fuel and a fireball traveled down the elevator
shafts and blew up the lobby. How does the fuel travel that far and
not burn out, nor lose its explosive force?

In the Naudet brothers
film, many people are seen exiting from a trapped elevator car after
the lobby had already been damaged. Apparently no fireball came down
their elevator shaft.

The lobby area was a
considerable distance from the elevators and the windows were
still blown out, while the areas directly around the elevators
showed little fire damage. How is that possible? What actually hit
the lobby? Eyewitnesses have reported that there was a large
explosion heard from the bottom of the tower, just before the
plane hit. What was the cause of this explosion? This report could
clearly explain the lobby damage and the blown out windows.

Firemen Not Wanted At The
Towers

What of the report
after the plane strikes and before the towers fell, that FDNY
firemen were asked to return to their precincts, rather than stay
downtown and battle the tower blazes? That fact is also caught by
the Naudet brothers on film.

How is it that human
remains were found after the 911 attacks on the rooftops of
buildings over 400 feet away? How do body parts fly that far without
an explosive force or something to accelerate them?

The Naudet film
highlights this event with actual eyewitness firefighter testimony,
talking of "raining body parts."

If the buildings collapsed
naturally, how were the body parts, along with huge steel beams,
thrown hundreds of feet away from the building, while the rest of
the mammoth structure landed eerily in its own footprint? What
extraordinarily powerful force blew the bodies and steel beams from
those buildings?

Molten Steel?

With no raging fires
burning out of control in the lower floors of the WTC, how is it
that molten steel was found in the basement of the towers? How is it
that after pouring water on the basement rubble that the steel was
still red hot for well over six weeks afterwards?

That's right, not six days...
over six weeks!

What outside reaction caused the
basement steel to melt and stay hot for six weeksafter 9/11, even after having
water sprayed on it? (Other reports claim the fires burned until
December. Whether six weeks or ten weeks, it is unheard of to have a
fire burn that long, especially with molten metal flowing as a
result.

Some have speculated
that the explosions heard were from deeply mined low-yield tactical
thermonuclear bombs, such as bunker-busters, buried deep in the
basement of the towers. This might explain the red hot steel that
still burned at an estimated 1500 degrees over six weeks later after
the disaster.

If the top structure
materials can been dowsed and put out, how does the core of the
building remain so hot for six to eight weeks afterwards? This was never
an area that was supposed to have been hot in the first place. What
type of reaction would cause a fire to literally melt steel
and keep it molten red hot for over six weeks after the event?

If not a controlled
detonation, then what else does
explain the remaining leftover molten steel in the basement, with no fire hot enough
to produce it? And again... what were
the tremendous explosions that so many people heard and felt just
before the towers came crumbling down? The explosions were not the
sounds of a building ripping apart as some wrongly claim, they were
literal explosions.

Numerous firemen,
policemen and
eyewitnesses are on record saying there were a number of large explosions
in the lower structure of the WTC. FDNY actually reported finding explosive devices in the building.
Those reports were also broadcast in the media as well.

The molten steel report is well documented and cannot be refuted, as corroborated by
NY Governor Pataki
in a CNN news piece.

Airplane fuel burns out in minutes, so what could possibly cause huge
steel girders in the lower basement to melt and then stay molten for weeks, all the while being
sprayed by FDNY with water?

There are also many
pictures and video before the destruction which show small localized areas
of molten metal spewing from sides of the building, areas not
particularly overwhelmed with fire. What then was causing this
reaction without an overwhelming fire to drive the heat?

Cut Steel?

Why didn't all the
girders melt if the fire was so hot?

Probably the biggest
question of all regarding the girders, how were the solid steel
beams cut cleanly in half, conveniently into easily transportable
sections?

In the picture below,
these beams have been cut cleanly in half. Note the absence of
rivets or bolts. These beams did not come apart at a man made
junction. They appear to be cleanly cut in half.

The other notable point
to recognize is the diagonal cut seen in the circled support below.
This is a technique in controlled demolition which promotes the
girders to slide off each other in an effect known as "walking."
This helps topple a structure quickly and efficiently.

Many have speculated
that one theory to explain the cut steel is a possible chemical thermite
reaction. A known property of thermite is to burn extremely hot and
literally melt its way through anything it comes in contact with. It
would explain the ability to effortlessly shear through massive
steel support columns without having to use smaller explosive
charges, however, it fails to address the shattered steel,
pulverized concrete and obliterated building objects.

Another interesting
note was that beams and girders were being found with molten holes
burned right through them. Many have surmised that these molten
characteristics are the reason that 1) all
pictures of ground zero
were banned, and 2) why the steel debris was shipped away so
quickly, out of the country.

The use of thermite, or
a military grade known as thermate, could also possibly explain the molten red hot core of the
WTC basement. One theory put forth is that as the girders fell, any residual termite would
also fall. As the girders slammed to the ground, leftover nano-thermite
(thermate) most
likely fell off the steel beams, landing in the rubble, continuing
to burn as it burrowed its way to the basement.

This is one possible
explanation for the molten steel that was red hot in the basement of
the WTC for over six weeks.

Active
Thermitic Material Is Found

A 2009 discovery by a
group of nine scientists and researchers has revealed that active
thermitic material was found in individual dust samples from four
separate locations in and around the World Trade Center. What was
found is not just active thermite, but instead active thermate, a
military version with a much lower combustion flashpoint which burns
far hotter. This corroborated early
suspicions from investigators who were questioning the presence of
molten steel.

A scientific crew that
included Danish scientist Niels Harrit, former Underwriters Lab
researcher Kevin Ryan, as well as BYU physicist Dr. Steven Jones, found trace elements of
military-grade thermate in many of the leftover debris
and dust samples that were collected from the WTC debris.

Other team
members included Jeffrey Farrer, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley,
and Bradley
R. Larsen.

The group co-authored a paper and published their
findings in the
Bentham Science Chemical Physics Journal. They wrote in their collaborative work, 'We have
discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have
studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade
Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from
separate sites, is reported in this paper.'

The paper goes on to note:

'The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red
material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but
narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the
normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous
iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the
ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of
these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and
highly energetic.'

The new scientific study strongly
refutes the official story that there is no evidence for
explosive-pyrotechnic materials in the World Trade Center 9/11
debris.

The article has been received
by the 9/11 truth movement as "smoking gun" evidence, when in
all actuality, it may very well only be but a single bullet
n the chamber.

Back-scattered electron (BSE)
photo from the newly released scientific study.

The finding of
super-thermite, a specialized military grade known as
nano-thermite, or thermate,
is a very peculiar substance to find in the WTC debris dust. Who
could have possibly procured such vast amounts of thermate to load
three massive skyscrapers with?

It is hard to believe that
a nano-thermite substance was the lone source for demolition of the
towers. Thermite is not known to be highly explosive, so it more than
likely would have had to be used in conjunction with another
demolition tool, such as tactical explosives.

It is
interesting
to note that the
2009 story of the swine flu epidemic suddenly came out of nowhere, just as the 9/11 thermate story
was building some interest. It essentially eclipsed and buried the thermate story in the media. What a coincidence.
And when it was all over, they said the swine flu was never as
dangerous as they had originally thought, although alarm quickly
grew back, squashing the thermate story in the press. Hopefully one
day the
media will get back to the thermate-WTC connection and start
asking some tough questions.

Remember the anthrax attacks after 9/11? Those media reports mysteriously
went away immediately when it was found to be a special
military grade anthrax that was traced back to Fort Detrick. And now we
have military grade thermate found in the WTC debris. Very
intriguing to say the least.

It should
be noted that the professor who oversaw the publication of the
scientific journal in which this WTC breakthrough research was published
was asked to resign shortly after publication.

So now
that evidence of a cutting charge has been found, will there be another event to
stifle a new 9/11 investigation? It's a
horrible thought to consider, but ask yourself this... what
would you do to cover-up 9/11 if you were involved in the murder of
thousands of innocent people and you were about to be exposed?
We can only hope that the rats start jumping off the NWO ship
and start turning on each other. At some point, some of the groups
involved have to say enough is enough already.

Whatever the value of its
role in the towers destruction, the discovery clearly has to be
recognized as making revolutionary inroads into the public's
awareness of a controlled demolition for the WTC towers. While the
discovery clearly does not explain everything in regards to the
destruction of the towers, it undeniably cannot be disputed that it
has been an integral key in opening the door of public consciousness
towards accepting the theory of controlled demolitions on 9/11.

At the present, a
debate rages within the 9/11 truth movement among researchers as to
whether or not thermite, or thermate, could be the sole cause of the
three WTC building collapses. It would seem to this researcher that
it was part of the destruction, but it was more than likely
used in conjunction with explosives, and possibly a third
unknown technological weapon that I will get into shortly.

Researchers hanging
their hats solely on the thermite (thermate) explanation might be
selling short their explanation for the buildings collapse, but
those resisting the substance in favor of another explanation could
also hinder valuable inroads made towards public acceptance of the
"inside job" theory.

Again, it is very
possible, if not likely, that more than one demolition technique was
used on 9/11. Perhaps the best idea when it comes to 9/11 research
and the thermite evidence is, to coin a phrase, don't throw the
baby out with the bathwater.

If anything, the thermate discovery
will hopefully bring about renewed pressure from the public to
re-open the 9/11 investigation.

Both towers free-fell
to
the streets below in only :10 seconds time, or less. There was no
impedance or resistance whatsoever it seems.

The top 34 floors of the south tower
begin to topple over.

The top of the South
tower actually began to fall away from the building, so why then did
the rest of tower implode if it did not fall on top of itself? How
did the bottom just fall out from under those top 34 floors as they
were falling off the top of the building?

What could have caused
thousands of tons of concrete to be instantly pulverized into a fine
powder?

If you tossed a hammer
from the top of the WTC right at the exact second of the implosion,
it would have hit the street at roughly the same time as the top of
the building. That's not possible for a building that is falling
apart and coming down naturally due to extreme environmental duress.

Make no mistake about it,
in the world of architecture and structural engineering, large
buildings and high-rise structures are specifically built to
resist collapse, not enable it.

Nowhere in the destruction
of either WTC 1, 2 or 7 did the buildings ever exhibit any
structural resistance whatsoever during their implosion. All three
fell with extreme rapid descent. And all three exhibited demolition
puffs of smoke, squibs, as they imploded.

Again... all three
buildings gave no structural resistance whatsoever during
their destruction. That is indeed very strange.

How is it that both
buildings fell so quickly, without any resistance, and both at the
same speed?

What could have caused the
enormous rooftop antenna to drop in a perfectly vertical fashion,
rather than toppling over onto its side or into a nosedive? It was
as if all the supporting structure underneath it fell away with
perfect symmetry and precision timing. The rooftop that supported
this massive antenna had its base drop in a perfectly level fashion.

And why did eyewitnesses
on the scene report that they heard numerous loud explosions and
then actually felt the ground tremble before the towers fell? That's
right, they felt the ground tremble. What force short of a
large earthquake would cause that?

Finding The Weapon

As with any murder
investigation, you need to find the weapon used. So, we have the
discovery of thermate, as well as the numerous eyewitness accounts
of tremendous explosions. Given the known properties of
thermate, it would more than likely have to be used in conjunction
with explosives, so the evidence at hand works together quite well
to explain some things, however it does not entirely explain
everything, such as the finely pulverized concrete and all other
office items. That is one of the key mysteries. So much of the
concrete and steel just turned to dust.

Another disturbing piece
to the puzzle is the top portion of the tower that broke off and was
falling off to the side. It should have ended up on the ground as a
30-plus story remnant, but it literally disintegrated on the way
down, in mid air. How does that happen? The pile-driver effect that
some like to falsely tout had no bearing on that piece of the
structure, let alone the rest of the WTC.

Much of the steel also
exhibited signs of rusting, an uncommon finding for these large
beams. Some have attributed this to the Hutchison Effect, a
telltale indication of Tesla scalar technology at work.

The nearby Bankers Trust
building was rebuilt, but then later torn down. Why repair a
building and then demolish it shortly thereafter? One clue might be
that it too was showing the strange rusting of steel beams that
weren't supposed to rust.

In conjunction with the
steel beams, cars all around the perimeter of the WTC showed strange
burn charring and unexplained rusting, some reported to be up to
half a mile away. Some cars were flipped upside down, while they
were in-between cars that were left right side up. It is as if
objects were levitated and then suddenly flipped over.

One example of strange
levitation taking place near the World Trade Center comes from
photographer David Handschu who claims that he was running from the
site when he was mysteriously levitated into the air and carried for
nearly one block.

All in all, it would
appear that there were indeed some very strange unaccountable forces
at work on 9/11. Not only were the buildings and furnishings turned
to dust, but hundreds upon hundreds of bodies were never ever found.
That is indeed very odd. A few hundred or so bodies missing is one
thing, but over a thousand is a another issue entirely. Not one
single spec. People that absolutely just vanished into thin air.

After much analysis, it
would appear to this researcher that another key element, an
advanced technological component, was involved on 9/11. There is no
other way to explain the absolute disintegration of these buildings
without some form of exotic technology application that is not well
known to the public. The research of Dr. Judy Wood regarding a
directed energy weapon (DEW) appears very likely and deserves
further scientific study.

A DEW is a likely
possibility, but thermate and explosives were very possibly still in
the mix in order to initiate the perfectly controlled demolitions.
Maybe DEWs were used in towers 1 and 2 and conventional demolition
techniques were used for building 7? After all, there were marked
differences in those collapses. Towers 1 and 2 were both top-down
destructions, while building 7 was a bottom-up collapse.

It is speculation only,
but based on the evidence at hand, it is very possible that thermate
and explosives were used with precision timing in conjunction with
directed energy weapons, or another unknown tactical destructive
force.

Much of what we place our
assumptions on is known technology. Considering that advanced
weapons research is easily 25 years or more ahead of what we know,
the capability for an unknown weapon beyond our experience is very
possible, if not highly probable, considering the intelligence
operatives that were more than likely involved.

Enter The Landlord

Last, but not least,
we have the story of WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein, who
coincidentally had just purchased the center less than six months
before
9/11, and then promptly had it heavily insured against terrorist attacks.
The building lease was said to be finalized just six weeks before
the attacks.

After 9/11, Silverstein
literally made out like a bandit and was able to profit from 9/11 by
winning a lawsuit against the insurance companies, claiming that 9/11 was
two
separate attacks, thus being awarded twice the insurance payout!

The total settlement was
originally for $4.5 billion although a court decision in 2004
overruled the award and lowered the amount to $3.5 billion. That's
way more than enough to rebuild
the WTC and still have a hefty profit left over.

Some would argue that
therein could be reasoning for possible criminal
motive, setting Silverstein up as potentially the perfect patsy, but the issue has
so far never been broached to this day. At least not yet.

Controlled Demolition!

When the 47-story Salomon building
(WTC 7) came down, everyone was surprised. The official government explanation ranged
from don't know to fire weakened steel, like WTC 1 and
2. By no means did anyone at that time mention anything about the building being brought
down by a controlled implosion.

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total
diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further
research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this
issue." - FEMA Report on 9/11

Listen to Dan
Rather of CBS television news as he describes the fall of World
Trade Center 7.

"Amazing,
incredible, pick your word... for the third time today, it's
reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television
before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed
dynamite to knock it down." - Dan Rather

The most interesting
part about Mr. Silverstein is that he went on record a year after
9/11, on a PBS program called America Rebuilds, saying that
he actually gave the order to have WTC 7 "pulled"
by means of a controlled demolition!

"And I remember
getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me
that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,
and I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to
pull, andthenwe watched the building collapse."
-Larry Silverstein

Silverstein made this
blockbuster
revelation well after the fact of the government's own statement,
already on the record, saying that the collapse of WTC 7 was
"unknown," and thought to be the result of extensive fire
damage, the
same as WTC 1 and 2.

So why did Silverstein
ever say such a thing?

To "pull" a
building is a controlled demolition term for bringing a building
down.

It's interesting to note
that Silverstein appears to have a nervous twitch in his right eye
whenever he mentions having the building "pulled."
(Watch the video above again in case you missed it.)

When Silverstein first made his
startling revelation about "pulling" building 7, many holes
in his story immediately became apparent.

First off, how
was it possible to wire and mine a building with tons of explosives
in just a few hours on 9/11?

Secondly, why did
Silverstein claim that FDNY had the building pulled? Since when
has the FDNY been in the business of imploding buildings?

Do the firefighters at the
end of this video look like they were responsible for pulling
WTC 7?

After watching the video,
do you really think that the fire department was responsible for
this or even knew anything about it? It certainly seems a surprise
to the firefighters in the above video.

When was
Silverstein called by the fire commander and who was the person that
called him? Was it Thomas Von Essen or Daniel Nigro? Perhaps Frank
Fellini? The funny thing is,no one
from FDNY admits to Silverstein's
outrageous claim of calling him.

Who is Silverstein
referring to when he says "they" made that decision to
pull?

Silverstein's story about
"pulling" building 7 started falling as fast as his buildings
did.

You have to believe they
were able to...

Find a
demolition crew with explosives on hand.

Load literally tons of
explosives quickly for transport.

Deliver the explosives,
despite the New York traffic jams.

Unload the trucks of tons
of explosives.

Move tons of explosives
into WTC building 7.

Find all structural load
bearing points and hastily wire and mine the entire building with
explosive charges, regardless of fire.

Taking all of this into account,
you can see the immediate error in Silverstein's judgment. It was
physically impossible to have a building wired and mined with such short notice and imploded at 5:20
that day. It is just not humanly possible.

The only way to have a
controlled demolition was to have the building wired in advance.

So after making such an
incriminating public gaffe, it was clear to Silverstein that he had
to somehow recant his meticulously worded admission, or
at least attempt to.

So Silverstein
tried to feebly explain that what he meant to say was to have the
firemen pulled from the building. Unfortunately for poor Larry,
there were immediate problems with that story as well, because the
FDNY was not allowed to go the building 7. All firemen were ordered
that morning to attend to the other World Trade Center buildings
instead. Building 7 was evacuated of all personnel early that
morning, before the towers came down.

Larry has now been ducking that comment
ever since.

How Did The Building 7 Fires Start?

Much like World Trade
Center towers one and two, how could such small fires
ever compromise the entire structure of WTC 7 in such a short time
period?

The building was alleged
to be pelted by
debris when the North tower imploded at 10:28, but it was not. WTC 7
was a good distance from the towers. Whatever the origin of the
fires was, they were not burning in the morning. It wasn't until
late in the afternoon that the building was actually reported to be
on fire by the major media.

On 9/11,
CNN News reported that WTC building 7 was on fire at 4:10 in the
afternoon. The
building fell in six and a half seconds at 5:20pm. No one ever reported
that the emergency fuel tanks exploded, so how did this building
allegedly burn
out of control and drop in a symmetrical free-fall fashion?

These fires were too
small to threaten the structure of WTC 7.

There are only two localized fires
in the picture above. There are no pictures of building 7 raging out
of control with fire. And don't forget, no plane
hit that particular building.

Even if the fire reached
the 23rd floor and ignited the Emergency Command Center's supply of
diesel fuel, there is physically not enough time for a fire to
undermine the structural integrity of this building. Again, the
command center was reported on the 23rd floor. The fires in the
picture above are no higher than the 11th or 12th floor. That's a
full 11 floors to have to burn through first just to get to that fuel.

So how does the building
burn in such a short amount of time? How did the fire
spread that fast?

What Was So Special About
Building 7?

Reports claim that vital
SEC records regarding the WorldCom and Enron scandals were housed in WTC
7, as well as paperwork dealing with the Enron California energy
swindle. The building housed offices for the IRS, Secret Service, the Office of
Emergency Management, and the SEC, the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The building was also alleged to have held
offices for the NSA and the CIA.

What other vital records
might have been in that building, or possibly shipped to it just
prior to 9/11? Whatever they had stored there, it was all
conveniently destroyed at 5:20pm that day. Many judicial cases
were closed or severely damaged as a direct result of this lost
critical evidence.

Building 7 also just so
happened to have its own fortified command bunker. The building 7
command center was
designed to survive a major disaster, such as the extreme forces of mother nature.
It was intended in every way to be an impenetrable, secure,
emergency fortress. Floor 23 was
specially reinforced and hardened, most interestingly with bomb and bullet
proof windows.

Why put bomb and bullet
proof windows on the 23rd floor?

Considering that rooftop
camera surveillance was clearly an option, why build an emergency
bunker up high in the first place? Why not build it in the basement,
safe from tornados, hurricanes and severe storms, where they could
safely view their rooftop cameras from TV monitors?

If anything, they appeared
to be building an observatory. From that 23rd floor command center,
they had the best eyes-on view of the city. They certainly had a
great view of towers 1 and 2.

If building the bunker up
high was a safe thing to do, why was it so easily dismissed and
discarded by Mayor Giuliani and the city of New York as an emergency
operations command center? (They moved to 75 Barkley Street on
9/11.) .

The big 9/11 question for
many is, how and why did WTC 7, the Salomon building, fall so easily
with very little fire and no plane crash to threaten its structure?

The
Buckle And Topple Theory

Many try to feebly explain
the destruction by claiming that the fire undermined a lower section of
supports, thus causing the building to fall. If that was indeed the
case, then the building should have acted like a table without a leg and collapsed to
the unsupported side.

Instead, this building did
just the exact opposite. It fell as if all legs of support were
removed at once. It falls level and evenly, all the way
down.

The building falls
flawlessly, in a free-fall fashion in just under seven seconds, very
much like WTC towers 1 and 2 did earlier that day.

The downfall of whoever
wired this building is that they did too good of a job on it. It
falls too precisely and flawlessly to have simply collapsed under natural
duress.

It did not topple over as
one might expect. Instead, this building, not hit by an airplane,
fell in free-fall fashion into nits own footprint, just as towers one and two did, directly
through its structural core and the path of most resistance.

Lastly, it is odd that it
destructively collapsed, while all the other buildings around towers one
and two did not. Many of those buildings took much larger debris
hits, yet not one of those structures collapsed as WTC 7 did.

FEMA was able to
acknowledge the total collapse of building 7, yet the 9/11
Commission felt it unworthy to even mention in their report.

Why
does the 9/11 Commission mention absolutely nothing about the
WTC 7 destruction?

Eyewitness WTC 7 Testimony Ignored

WTC 7 eyewitness Barry
Jennings, an employee of the New York City Housing Department, said
that he did not believe the official story of how WTC building 7
fell. His own account is drastically different and gives an entirely
contrary view to the official story on the destruction of WTC 7, the
Salomon building. He claimed that there were big explosions coming
from the 8th floor, not the 23rd floor, nor the emergency
generator fuel stored in the building for the command center's
operation. He was adamant about that.

Another eyewitness
described WTC 7 as something out of a Bruce Willis "Die Hard"
movie. An interesting comparison.

Barry Jennings went
on public record saying that he and Michael Hess, the NYC
Corporation Counsel, were stepping over
dead bodies as they tried to escape WTC building 7. The building was reported to have
been evacuated early on that morning, after the first plane hit WTC
tower one, the North tower. OEM Commissioner John Odermatt said that
after the first plane hit the WTC, he left only two staffers there
(at building 7). So where did all the dead bodies come from
that Jennings claims to have been stepping over?

In an interview with Loose
Change producer Dylan Avery, Jennings said that he was called to the
WTC 7 command center, along with New York Corporation Counsel
Michael Hess.

Jennings said the
command center was empty when he and Hess arrived, and that was
not normal. He said that when they got to the 23rd
floor command center, no one was there, yet steaming
cups of coffee still sat on the desk, as if someone had been there
and left in a hurry.

According to
Jennings, “Upon arriving into the OEM EOC we noticed that
everybody was gone. I saw coffee that was on the desk, still, the
smoke was still coming off the coffee. I still, I saw, uh, half eaten
sandwiches and only me and Mr. Hess was up there. Uh, after I called
several individuals, one individual told me that uh, to leave and
leave right away."

Hess and Jennings
left the 23rd floor command center, but when they reached
the 8th floor, there was a huge explosion.

Jennings stated,
“That day I will never forget and the explanations given to me were
totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable, because as I stated, I
was there. I lived through it.”

He later concluded
his remarks saying. “When I got home I sat down in front of the
TV… I couldn’t stop watching it. And that’s when I found out that
building 7 came down. I was so surprised. And I’m saying to myself,
why did that building come down? And, I knew why it came down,
because of the explosions. And it was not no fuel oil tanks..

Jennings was
very matter of fact in his testimony, as can be seen in his video
interview with Avery, but apparently, after much duress, Mr. Jennings later changed his
story somewhat, excluding any mention of stepping over any dead
bodies in World Trade Center 7.

It would appear that
someone had apparently gotten to Barry Jennings and coerced him to
change his testimony.

Unfortunately for
Jennings, according to reports, he met an untimely death on August
19th of 2008, just two days
before the final NIST report on WTC 7 was released. The NIST report said
there were no explosions in WTC 7 and no eyewitness
testimony. Very strange that the eyewitness whose testimony
contradicted the NIST report should mysteriously die just before its
release.

There was never any
official report released explaining the cause of Jennings' death.

A private
investigator was retained by 9/11 researchers to look into the
demise of Jennings, however the case took a strange turn when the
private investigator abruptly quit before finishing the
investigation. A note was sent stating, "Due to some of the
information I have uncovered I have determined that this is a job
for the police. I have refunded your credit card. Please do not
contact me again concerning this individual." (Investigator name
withheld.)

His untimely demise is
still a mystery to this day.

Rooftop Building Drops
First

A looming question
regarding the explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 is...
if this
destruction truly started at the bottom with the base imploding first, then
how did the rooftop building at the top of building 7 fall
before it? That is indeed quite odd.

Watch the CBS Dan Rather
video again and note the top structure on the roof of building 7.
This small building drops first, before the bottom ever
gives way.

If the bottom structure of
the building is to blame for the building's destruction, how is it
possible for the uttermost top structure, a small building on the
roof, to drop first?

The
Biggest Distinction Of All

The one notable
distinction
in the destruction of the twin towers and WTC 7 is in the way they
fell. There was a difference.

WTC towers one and two both fell from
the top down, but World Trade Center 7 imitated a controlled
demolition in every aspect of its destruction. It started at
the bottom and not the top, unlike towers one and two.

Compare the video (above)
of the WTC 7 destruction with the following video of the twin towers
falling.

How did nature
decide to deal with towers 1 & 2 in a different manner than building
7? This is a
very telling comparison in regards to the true nature of the
buildings destruction.

Make no mistake about it,
WTC 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a controlled demolition,
just as Silverstein eluded to in his first PBS admission. It did not
buckle. It imploded evenly, all the way down, but three large questions arise from that
admission... 1) when was World Trade Center 7
actually wired and mined, 2) who was responsible for those orders
and 3) who carried them out?

Make no
mistake about it, Silverstein could not have ordered the buildings
to be pulled that day as he claims, unless they were already
pre-wired before that day.

The Silverstein Back-Pedal

It's easy to see that
Silverstein's story of having building 7 "pulled"
through controlled demolition on
9/11 had serious time constraints that hindered any immediate demolition
work, on that day. His story had to change.

After the understandable
litany of questions and the ensuing fallout from Silverstein's
blockbuster admission on PBS, he indeed changed his story, saying
now that
having the building "pulled" in demolition terms was not
what he meant at all.

Really?

Let's look at Larry's quote one more
time.

"...and
I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to
pull, andthenwe watched the building collapse."

It's interesting that
Silverstein would even attempt to refute such a deliberate choice of
words and the seemingly transparent inference that they paint in
regards to the event as it happened.

Silverstein now would have
people believe that he was referring to "pulling the existing
firemen from the building to evacuate it."

His excuse and the feigned
logic behind it is considered by many to certainly be strained, at
the very least.

First off, his reasoning
starts, "We've had such a terrible loss of life." Certainly
not at WTC 7. It was evacuated much earlier that morning. So he must
surely be making an analogy to the earlier destruction of towers one
and two.

But if there are no people
in tower seven, where is the danger of another terrible loss of
life, as Silverstein described it?

The basic problem with
Silverstein's story is that building seven was already evacuated by the time that
Silverstein was referring to. The building occupants were evacuated
early on that morning.

As for the firefighters
that Silverstein alleges to have wanted to "pull" from the
building... they were told to move away from WTC 7 for safety
reasons at 11:30 that morning by Assistant Fire Chief Frank
Fellini.

So who was possibly in the
building that Larry was referring to?

Who are "they" that
Silverstein alleges to have made the decision to pull the building?
He infers it was the FDNY. Which chief made that assessment and the
alleged order to pull the building?

There were no firemen to
pull from the building. Reports claim the water to the area was
cut-off when towers one and two fell, so they reportedly couldn't
fight the fire and therefore weren't needed inside the building.

According to the FEMA
report, "no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

After he says they made
the decision to pull, Silverstein's very next immediate statement
is, "And then we watched the building collapse."

How coincidental is that?
He mentions a demolition term and then in his very next statement he
gives the result for using such a term.

How is it that the
building suddenly collapses, strangely enough, exactly according
to the demolition term he mentioned?

No matter how Mr.
Silverstein tries to paint it, the term "pull" is a
demolition term for imploding a building. He says they made the
decision to pull and then they watched the building collapse. In
that order.

Examine Silverstein's
comments and he says four basic things.

We've had such terrible
loss of life.

Maybe the smartest thing
to do is pull it.

They made that
decision to pull.

Then we watched the
building collapse

How Larry can possibly try
to say he meant anything different is beyond apparent reason, but
the effort to try and recant such an incriminating admission as
his can certainly be understood.

What Do
Other Demolition Experts Say?

It's readily apparent to
professional demolition experts what Mr. Silverstein was referring to
when he used the term "pull." Watch the
following video with demolition expert Danny Jawenko and his
impressions from watching the destruction of WTC7.

Mr. Jawenko is on record
as noting the difference in the way towers 1 & 2 came down and the
way WTC 7 came down. Because of the bottom up demolition and the
extremely controlled level implosion of Word Trade
Center building 7, Jawenko said this was clearly a controlled
demolition. (Jawenko is now dead from a car crash, driving home from
church.)

For coincidence sake once
again, ask yourself this question...
How is
Silverstein able to suggest that the building be "pulled" and
then right after that, it gets pulled, as in a demolition?

The trillion-dollar
question after Silverstein's admission is this...When did they possibly have the time to actually wire the building?

"Lee
Harvey" Silverstein

Why did Silverstein make
such an admission a year after the fact? Why didn't he just let
things go with the FEMA report and be done with it? Why come back a
year later and say something that was never in the report? Was
Silverstein encouraged to make those statements by someone else? And
why back-pedal later on and then recant that admission of
demolition?

It's almost as if
Silverstein didn't know what he was getting himself into with the
later admission of demolition charges. Once it became readily
apparent that he was on the hook for a demolition that could not be
explained, he quickly sang a different tune.

Silverstein is now in the
unenviable position of being the fall guy for the New York end of
the 9/11 attacks. If
the media and others finally do wake up and start questioning the
buildings destruction and how WTC 7 could possibly have been mined and
wired with explosives, Larry Silverstein is clearly one man people
will come to. God forbid that we should find Mr. Silverstein after
an alleged suicide with a note of confession left behind
detailing his remorse.

It's almost as if the
corrupt powers that be have also planned for after the attacks
with an excuse now that gives them exit from any blame surrounding
the 9/11 event. Silverstein's payout was in the billions, so a case
could easily be made for simple greed as the motive for 9/11. The
case would probably state that he couldn't retrofit or clean the WTC
towers of asbestos, so he had them heavily insured and then brought
down to collect the insurance money.

None of this obviously
explains the Washington attacks or the Pennsylvania crash, but then
again, nothing the government has told us to this point makes sense,
so why bother starting here?

The undeniable point to
this is, after his PBS admission, Silverstein is now forever on the
hook as possibly having implicit foreknowledge of the event, if not
a direct hand in the destruction of his own newly leased WTC towers.

One would assume that Mr.
Silverstein has possibly figured this out after the TV admission and
that is why he is trying to now change his testimony regarding the
destruction of building 7. Or once again, it could all just be another
weird 9/11 coincidence. A very tidy one at that.

When Could The
Buildings Have Been Mined For
Demolition?

Many rightfully suggest the buildings
had to have been mined in advance, perhaps months before when
construction was taking place in towers 1, 2 and 7. A December 2000 NYC assessment
had mandated that structural renovations be
made to the buildings (even though WTC 7 was much newer). The
company in charge of the work was Turner Construction, a resident of
the WTC and one with close ties to Bush.

This provided a working
window to rig the buildings. After all, if you go off Silverstein's
initial "pull-it" statement, how was it humanly possible for anyone
to wire the building in only a few short hours on 9/11?

There was also opportunity
for some nefarious activity the weekend before. According to Scott
Forbes,
there was reportedly a "power down" condition in
WTC tower 2, the south tower, when the building was reported to be
undergoing late night cable retrofitting in the service corridors of
the building. This power down condition meant there was no
electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from the 50th floor on
up.

Without any power there
were of course no working security cameras and no security locks on
the doors to prevent unwarranted access, allowing anyone much easier
entry to many areas of the tower.

The possibility of a
controlled demolition is not a pleasant question that one wants to
ask regarding 9/11, let alone openly entertain, but on the other
hand, the answers we've been given so far don't exactly inspire
confidence in our government's official explanation of what happened
on 9/11.

Why Destroy The World Trade Center?

Aside from creating a false terrorist
attack that would provide an excuse for enacting an American police
state, while allowing for unprovoked wars overseas, the World Trade
Center was the perfect choice as a target for many other reasons. It
was more than just a symbol of American financial power. There were
other issues at hand that made it a target of convenience.

The primary two WTC towers were also said to be a
huge loss leader for the
Port Authority of New York and were said to be extremely costly to
maintain, running in the millions per year for basic operating
necessities.

Another possible reason
for why the
WTC towers may have been deliberately demolished is because they
were constructed using literally tons of cancer causing asbestos
as a fire retardant. The Port Authority was ordered to clean up the
buildings. The cost to remove the asbestos from the
buildings would have more than likely been more than the cost of the
buildings.

Building 7 was much newer
though. Built in 1985, it had no asbestos to remove, but it still
had much sensitive evidence to get rid of, as previously outlined
above.

From the testimony of
Barry Jennings, the command center bunker was obviously in operation
on 9/11. The presence of dead bodies after the building had been
evacuated was another troubling situation that no doubt needed to be
buried. WTC 7 was essentially a crime scene, so it had to go. There
were too many questions that would be asked.

CNN, BBC
Report WTC 7 Destruction Before It Happens

Another undeniably strange oddity from September 11th was the announcement from
CNN and the BBC that the Salomon building, World Trade Center
building 7, had collapsed, nearly 20 minutes before it actually
fell. What a strange coincidence. Of all the buildings that were
damaged that day, how did they get it right that WTC 7 was going to
fall?

Both announced that World Trade Center 7, the Salomon building, had also
collapsed just like towers 1 and 2. The only problem was, they
actually announced it before it actually happened.

Watch the BBC video yourself
and ask why WTC building 7 is clearly still standing in the
background.

The time date stamp says 21:54 in the video report. London is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean-Time. One could
possibly argue over whether the time stamp was GMT or WET for the
English daylight standard.

One could even claim someone goofed in the control room with the
character generator and typed the time stamp incorrectly.

What is hard to argue is the subject matter being reported and
the stunning contradictory visual that is behind the reporter.
The reporter is seen announcing that the Salomon Building (WTC 7)
has just collapsed, all the while WTC 7 is still standing right
behind her!

First and
foremost, interestingly enough, the BBC does not refute the charges. The response from BBC news
editor Richard Porter was as follows:

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done
so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

-Richard Porter, BBC

Wow. They "coincidentally" seemed to have hit a huge event right on
the head. To have a false report of this scope and nature that
suddenly comes true is certainly news in itself, yet the BBC seems to blindly
disregard the event as pure coincidence. Just another of the many
wild coincidences in the incredibly tangled web of 9/11.

So here's another coincidence, just as the WTC was actually about
to implode, the satellite footage of the U.S. report suddenly gets
lost. Is anyone counting coincidences yet?

Screen break up as WTC 7 gets ready to finally
fall.

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage
(for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a
recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the
tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up
the issue one way or another."

-Richard Porter, BBC

Wow again. A major faux pas such as that and an established news
organization such as the BBC very conveniently loses the tapes from
the most infamous day in recent modern history?

Another 9/11 coincidence?

After repeated outcries from the 9/11 truth movement, fortunately enough someone did come up with a copy of the
broadcast, apparently misfiled in the BBC archives. It has long
since been posted it on the internet.

( see movie link above )

BBC
Anchor Forgets Role On 9/11

As if the above BBC
broadcast doesn't give one time to pause and reflect, perhaps
the anchor's initial denial and later alleged poor recollection of
the event itself offers yet a bit more intrigue to the BBC 9/11
story.

How do you forget the
events on 9/11? How is something that was reported worldwide missed
as news by this intrepid news anchor, especially when he and the BBC
were the focus of that news story?

News Media Pawns

The anchors of these
premature news events may very well have been nothing more than
unwitting pawns during this entire event, but the fact that the
story was given at all to the media before tower seven fell is
striking on its own merit. No steel structure had ever collapsed
from fire in the history of steel high-rise buildings. Who could
have possibly conceived the impossible for this building as
well, when it was never hit by any large airplanes?

Building 6

Another building with
just as much importance is building six, which was destroyed early
on in the day. It housed the El Dorado Task Force,an interagency money laundering watchdog group
responsible for all money laundering investigations in the US.

What a
coincidence.

Also, official photographer Kurt Sonnenfield took pictures
of the US Customs vault under WTC 6… empty with the door left open.
Just like in WTC 4. Sonnenfield is now said to be wanted by the US
government, allegedly for knowing too much.

Use Your Head

No matter what the official story was, use your own eyes and the
brain God gave you when viewing the pictures and video of 9/11.
There were no raging fires in the lower portions of either tower
that were capable of undermining the structural integrity of the
steel and concrete in those towers. Any fire that hot would surely
have blown the windows out, as happens normally with extremely hot building and
high-rise fires.

There was no significant smoke coming from any of the floors far
below the damage. Odd for a raging inferno that was allegedly so hot
that it burned out and weakened the entire structure of a 110-story
building. That's a lot of steel and concrete to burn and
soften up in only :57 minutes!

And since when does fire pulverize concrete slabs over a foot
thick? Never before has there been a building so ravaged by fire
that the concrete of the entire building became pulverized
into such a fine dust. If the minimal 9/11 fire could do that, then
the Madrid Windsor fire should have obliterated that entire
structure, yet it clearly didn't.

[ See the link for the Madrid fire picture above ]

One thing does seem apparent, the impact of an
aluminum skinned plane at far less than mach speed, plus a
few sparse, short-lived fires, hardly seem worthy
of any credibility whatsoever in regards to destabilizing WTC towers 1 and 2, yet it has been lapped up by every
media outlet in the U.S. since 9/11.

With no fires burning longer than :57 minutes, how is it that the
steel infrastructure for an entire 110-story building could become
so thoroughly compromised so quickly. How is it possible under this
scenario for floor after floor to pancake on top of each other?

Most important of all... how does a building that is pancaking on
top of itself do so in a free-fallfashion?

Buildings just don't do that. The laws of physics quite simply do
not allow for it.

The only way to get a building to fall on top of itself in a
free-fall fashion is with strategically placed explosive charges,
such as dynamite or even thermate, a substance more powerful than
thermite.

A natural collapse would not have brought any of the three
World Trade Center towers down in less than :10-seconds.

Cause & Effect

When a building naturally collapses upon itself, it is with the
aid of a fundamental
principle of nature known as "cause and effect." In this scenario,
the concrete from above collapses onto the floor below. The
floor then gives way under the added weight, thereby crashing to the next
floor, whereupon the action and reaction is continued over
and over. Once again, cause and effect. You have an action take
place and then an opposing reaction. Simple science.

A chain-reaction is just that, a chain of reactions. Every
event must wait for an action and the subsequent opposite reaction
to take place. It takes time for the chain-reaction to progress and
is nowhere close to a free-fall time. They are two
distinctly different forces.

Get a stopwatch and time
the destruction of WTC buildings 1 and 2. Both structures undeniably
drop in a free-fall fashion, not due to a series of natural
chain-reactions. Each floor undeniably drops instantly under the
previous floor.

If each floor had truly undergone a real "cause and
effect" chain-reaction, it should have physically taken much longer
for each WTC tower to collapse. Consider the math needed to
accomplish such a feat.

Do the Math

How long would it take for 110 floors to drop, if they were to
drop one on top of the other, as WTC towers 1 and 2 did on 9/11?

Consider the following scenario... the 110th floor of a building collapses onto
the 109th floor. Now, how long for that floor to give way under the
added weight? A few seconds? One second? Half a second?

Just for the sake of argument, we'll take the least amount of
time and select a mere half a second as our base time for each
floor to collapse and then undermine the floor below, causing it in
turn to also collapse and thus repeat the cycle over and over until
the complete 110-story structure was down.

So now do the math. Seriously. Take the little amount of time and
effort that other investigators obviously didn't bother to
contribute on their own.

If each floor took a mere half of a second to collapse, then it
should have taken around :55 seconds, almost a full minute for the
entire structure to collapse.

Gee, that's quite different than a mere :10 seconds, isn't it?

And remember, we selected the lesser amount of time for
our
cause and effect reaction. Some might argue that one half
second is too short
of a time frame for a natural collapse to occur under, and they may
very well be correct, certainly for the top floors of the buildings
which would have carried significantly less weight and load at the
onset of the collapse.

If each floor took longer to drop, as they should have under a
natural collapse with no demolition charges involved, then the time
duration for the building's fall would also increase; again, not
even remotely close to the :10-second free-fall that was witnessed live by
millions worldwide.

If it took a full second per floor, then the time doubles to 1:50
for a building to come down, almost two minutes to bust up and break
down, not 8 to 10 seconds.

To come down at the speed of gravity is unheard of. Quite literally, no known
building in the history of engineering has ever pancaked like that,
at a rate that fast, unless aided by precise demolition efforts.

So how fast did each floor come down then? Again, do the math.
It's simple enough to do, yet with the lack of interest in
investigating 9/11, you get the idea that maybe no one has ever done
it before. If they had, then maybe they might start asking some of
these very same questions.

One Hundred Ten Divided By Ten

If you go with :10-seconds as the duration of the alleged collapse, which
is the time most news accounts cited, that means each floor took
less than a tenth of a second to collapse.

Look at it this way... if the building was only 100-stories tall,
then ten floors would have collapsed in one second of time. A rate
of ten floors per second! That is far fetched and absolutely unbelievable under most
natural cause and effect conditions, save for maybe an earthquake of
10.0 or greater, and even that might not bring a building of that
size down that fast.

If anything, the building might start falling apart slowly, then
increase its falling speed as the weight of the building's load
increased with each collapsing floor, but that isn't what happened.
Strangely enough, the building fell through the bulk of the
structure below, the path of most resistance due to the
floors underneath and the subsequent imposing physical mass
involved, but it did so at near free-fall speed. Rather than topple
and break apart slowly, it fell at pretty much the exact same speed from start to finish. Again, a very
un-natural occurrence by any measure of science and physics.

Those that hold fast to the official story on the collapse of the towers are
being asked to accept an un-natural explanation with absolutely no base in scientific
fact whatsoever. This, by many takes, was clearly a man-made
disaster. The WTC towers should have slowly fallen apart, not drop in
free-fall fashion in less than :10-seconds, no matter how they were
designed. And just for the engineering record, self-pulverizing concrete was never part of the
design either. The only way you get concrete dust is by using
high explosives in
a controlled implosion.

One Thing At A Time

First off, without question, a building cannot fall upon itself and
cause a free-fall, not without the aid of explosive charges. It has to fall in segments, as the weight
overcomes each section.

Secondly, no engineer has devised a way to get a building to collapse
upon itself in the free-fall time that the WTC towers fell in. No one has
developed a free-fall formula for engineering design. It's
certainly not possible by any engineering standards known to man
today. We are still bound by the laws of physics, buildings have
to have an action and a reaction, cause and effect, when they come down
(without explosives).

This fundamental principle is where most people are missing out
and falling too easily for a very poor excuse that is not only
illogical and implausible, but also physically impossible.

Newton would absolutely roll over in his grave.

Reports Of Explosions

Many inside and around the WTC buildings reported large
explosions before the towers came down. These reports came from the
FDNY and NYPD, as well as various news sources.

What was the source of these large explosions that literally made
the ground shake and the buildings rattle?

The coincidence of numerous large explosions just before the
towers fell is alarming. Why were these reports discounted?

NIST Computers Can't Arrive At Solution For Natural Collapse

The National Institute for Standards and Technology says that its
computer models cannot explain the twin towers destruction, although
they are still standing behind their assumption that the building
failures initiated in the floors affected by aircraft impact damage
and the ensuing fires that resulted.

According to NIST, "At this point, because of the magnitude of
the deflections and the numbers of failures occurring, the computer
models are not able to converge on a solution."

NIST then stated,
“As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full
explanation of the total collapse.”

The new study, well over 10,000 pages long,
was not able to successfully address the glaring fact that the
buildings fell with little or no resistance whatsoever, at literally
free fall speed.

Information such as this
does not confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that the building fell
due to fire and structural weakening.

They also added, "NIST
has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that
explosives were used to bring down the buildings." But in the
next breath, they admit, "NIST did not conduct tests for
explosive residue."

How thorough of an
investigation can the United States public expect when the National
Institute for Standards and Technology admits something like this?

What we are being asked to
swallow is an investigation heavy with assumption, rather than
factual data with specific conclusions.

Disposal of Forensic Evidence

One of the most suspicious
aspects from the aftermath of the event was the calculated and
deliberate removal of evidence from the crime scene.

Why were the steel
girders immediately removed and shipped overseas?

For what reason would the
steel debris from the WTC be shipped out of the country so fast,
without any further investigation?

Since when is
forensic evidence disturbed at a crime scene, let alone physically
removing it before it is thoroughly investigated?

Why was there no ongoing
forensic or structural analysis performed on the steel girders?

Why ship the steel all
the way out of the country when you have the world's leader in steel
right next-door in Pennsylvania? What could China or some other
nation do with the steel that we couldn't do in Pittsburgh, the
steel capital of the world?

Why did they send the
steel and all its forensic evidence away?

This is unheard of in a
crime scene investigation, but for 9/11 it is just another of many
firsts that have become exclusive to to this sordid criminal event.

The editor-in-chief of "Fire
Engineering" magazine, William A.
Manning, called for a forensic investigation and asked for the steel
to be saved so that fire and structural investigators could
determine the cause of the destruction.

Manning stated at the time, "Such destruction of evidence shows
the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a
thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
collapse in world history. I have combed through our national
standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere does one find
an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over
ten stories tall. Clearly, there are burning questions that need
answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle,
fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative."

As expected, months later, the
Science Committee of the House of
Representatives said that the World Trade Center investigation was
greatly "hampered" by the destruction of the critical evidence.

Even the New York Times was unable to
find out who called for the destruction of the WTC evidence.
According to the times, "Officials in the mayor's office declined
to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day
period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that
the decision might be handicapping the
investigation."

Added to that, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)."I must say that the
current investigation... some would argue that 'review' is the more
appropriate word... seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy.There are no clear lines of authority," he said. "No one is in
charge."

Before the fires were even contained, Mayor Giuliani and the city's
Department of Design and Construction (DDC) Kenneth Holden, had
contracted four major construction management companies to begin the
removal of steel and the resulting debris from the WTC.

The
Engineering And Clean Up Connections

When you examine the companies that
were given clean up contracts, some intriguing relationships come to
light. In all, four companies were contracted for the work. Strangely enough, two of the four contracted companies
selected for the clean-up were primarily foreign owned corporations
or subsidiaries.

Controlled Demolition, Inc.

AMEC Construction Management

Turner Construction

Tully Construction

Of significant note, one of the companies used
to clean up after the Oklahoma City bombing disaster,
Controlled Demolition Inc., was also asked to clean up as one of
four crews contracted for the World Trade Center.
Interesting that this company would be involved in the only two
domestic attacks ever on American soil. The company was reported to
receive $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site

From the CDI website: Controlled Demolition Inc., of Maryland
was used at the
Murrah Building in Oklahoma City,
as well as the WTC destruction in New York.

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the
appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense
(DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive
projects, domestically and internationally.

Another company,
AMEC Construction
Management, a London-based firm and subsidiary of the British
engineering firm AMEC, ranked by "Engineering News Record" magazine
as the world's largest firm. They were responsible for the new
renovation at the Pentagon before 9-11. After their renovation was
destroyed, they were then contracted to clean it up afterward. The
company was paid from all phases of the project, the renovation,
the subsequent clean up and also the rebuild.

AMEC was the only construction company
that actually worked at both disaster sites, the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon.

From their website: On September 11
2001, AMEC was in the final stages of a major renovation and
hardening project at the Pentagon that included a portion of the
building that was struck by the hijacked airplane.

In the renovation of the
Pentagon’s Wedge 1, AMEC implemented a building hardening system
that included floor-to-ceiling steel reinforcing beams and walls
lined with strong fibrous Kevlar-like material similar to that found
in bulletproof vests. Whilst, blast-resistant glass, nearly two
inches thick, was also installed in the windows.

Had it not been for that, you
would have had a much larger collapse and perhaps many more
casualties,” Lee Evey, Manager of the Pentagon Renovation project,
said at a Department of Defense news briefing days after Sept. 11.
After the terrorist attacks, crews from AMEC worked
around-the-clock, seven days a week, completing the demolition and
the removal of the damaged structure in one month, half the time of
initial expectations.

AMEC also played a leadership role
in the Pentagon’s successful Phoenix Project, the primary goal of
which was to re-build the Pentagon and have employees return to the
offices destroyed by the anniversary of the attacks. This goal was
met a month ahead of schedule.

In addition to its special role at
the Pentagon, AMEC also had a leadership role in managing the
rescue, recovery and cleanup activities at the World Trade Center.

AMEC had just finished the renovation at
the Pentagon when it was
called to manage the removal of debris there and at the World
Trade Center.

The company managed the Hudson River
barging operations, moving the rubble and debris from the WTC site
to a landfill on Staten Island and then on to steel recycling
operations in New Jersey.

AMEC was in charge of organizing and
engineering the around-the-clock clean up operation in the northwest
sector. This included the North Tower and WTC building 6 (U.S.
Customs House). They also cleaned up the 47-story WTC 7, which
mysteriously collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11.

It is quite apparent that AMEC has
enjoyed a very close and most lucrative association with the U.S.
government.

A third company, Turner
Construction, another foreign held entity, is a subsidiary
of Hochtief AG, an international firm headquartered in Essen,
Germany. (Turner merged with Hochtief AG in 1999.)

As mentioned
previously in this article, they were contracted in 2000 for recommended structural renovations
to WTC towers 1 and 2, and also building 7, even though WTC 7 was much a newer building.

During the renovation, they
were also said to have done fireproofing work on the impacted floors in
WTC towers 1 and 2.

As just
one more added coincidence to the 9/11 event, CEO Tom C. Leppert had close
personal ties to George Bush.

Turner Construction has
since been unwilling to discuss its role
at the World Trade Center site.

Another company involved in the WTC
ground zero clean up was Tully Construction
from Flushing, N.Y.

Peter Tully, president of the company
had this to say about the company's work at the World Trade Center
site:

"I was there every day. The mayor's office
and DDC called us on Sept. 11 ... on the site we had at least
three meetings a day with Ken Holden and Mike Burton."

Wow. With everything going on that day,
Giuliani and company actually took the time to look for a clean up
company, before all fires were put out or any search and rescue
operations could be completed. This just seems like a weird priority
on that day. (?)

The WTC site was initially divided into
four quadrants and Tully
Construction was assigned to Quadrant 3.

Tully has said that his company also worked on the South Tower,
WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground retail mall. He
commented publicly on the destruction of the WTC:

"Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and
telephones in those towers -- I never saw one -- everything was
pulverized. Everything that was above grade, above the 6th and 7th
floor... disintegrated ... it was like an
explosion."

Tully Construction just happens to specialize
in concrete. Tully was asked if he had ever seen concrete pulverized
as it was at the WTC.

"No -- never," he said.

Tully also stated that there were many hot spots where he observed
"literally molten steel."

FEMA's
Quick Response

While we're asking
questions... ask yourself how clairvoyant our government was before
9/11? Allegedly not enough to stop the attacks, which they claim
they could never have imagined, but apparently psychic enough to send FEMA to New York the night before.

FEMA rescue worker Tom
Kenney told CBS' Dan Rather in an interview that FEMA arrived in New
York late Monday night (before 9/11) and was deployed to
support the city of New York for "this" disaster.

"We're
currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support
the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late
Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until
today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site."

It's hard to believe the
FEMA line after the fact because Mr. Kenney did two things in his
admission. First off, he gave specific days, as in Monday and
Tuesday. He did not say "the day before" or "the day
after," which is certainly more non-specific.

Kenney also qualified
those dates by referencing the chronology of those days. He says
they came in Monday night and went into action on Tuesday
morning. 9/11 did happen that Tuesday morning.

Secondly, Kenney says FEMA
was deployed to, "support the city of New York for this
disaster." He does not say they were there by coincidence
for a later disaster drill. He says they were in town for "this"
disaster.

But FEMA officials still
tried to deny that they arrived in town the night before 9/11. They
officially went on record to publicly deny the charge, saying Kenney
had his days mixed up.

Really?

If FEMA came in Tuesday
night as they later tried to claim, they would have immediately
gone into action that night, no matter the time, to begin the
act of disaster aid and search and rescue. It's very unlikely they would
have waited to start helping until the next day. Not in the
disaster aid business. Not for something like this. Not for 9/11.

When you're helping to
combat a disaster, every precious second counts and is desperately
needed. With lives in the balance and a national disaster such as
9/11, how strange would it be for FEMA to show up in New York City
and then just check-in to their
hotel and go to sleep for the night? Why wait to start rescue work the
next morning for the worst disaster ever on American soil?

But wait... the story gets
even murkier still.

Much like Larry Silverstein's one year later admission on the
demolition of WTC 7, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani also stepped
forward after the fact to testify that FEMA was there
early after all! Only this time Giuliani tried to convince
people that FEMA was coincidentally there the night before in
order to set up on 9/11 for a reported biological warfare terror drill
(Tripod II) on Pier 92 the
next day.

Again, how extremely
coincidental.

We are to believe that one
branch of the government, NORAD, was involved in drills to stop
hijacked airliners on 9/11, while another branch, FEMA, was also
coincidentally getting ready for their own unrelated exercise
against terrorism.

Why is it that FEMA
couldn't get its own story straight? Why so many changes from the
office of Emergency Management?

How Did
OEM Know The Towers Were Coming Down?

Another disturbing aspect
of the 9/11 event are the numerous reports that firefighters had
warned people that the buildings were coming down. Mayor Giuliani
admits being warned by the Office of Emergency Management that the building was about to come down.

“I
went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley
Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire
Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were
operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center
was going to collapse."

The fact that no
steel frame high-rise building had ever collapsed from fire makes
this comment very interesting.

What basis did the
Office of Emergency Management have for concluding that the
buildings were going to come down when this had never happened
before in the history of high-rise buildings?

How did OEM know the
buildings were coming down before the firefighters knew? Why didn't
the OEM then warn all the firefighters?

To date, no FDNY or NYPD
911 audio has been discovered that shows a warning was ever
broadcast to rescue members that the buildings were coming down.

Rudy
Flip-Flops On Warning

Very much like Larry
Silverstein's "pull it" admission, Rudy Giuliani did a sudden about-face on his comments
regarding the warning that the towers were going to fall. While
Silverstein tried to change the intended inference of his
admission on "pulling" building 7, former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani went a step further by totally recanting that he ever said
that he was warned or knew that the towers were going to fall.

Watch Giuliani get testy
as he is asked who warned him, and also who, if anybody, that he
personally warned
himself. Giuliani was then asked how he sleeps at night. The
exchange immediately turned sour.

If you need to watch his
warning again, just look back to the video a few paragraphs back.

Why would Rudy admit this
publicly on television, then later try to say that he never said
this?

Because of this glaring
error in judgment, Rudy has now unwittingly placed himself in a
horribly bad position, as a possible patsy to be framed, much like
Silverstein did. He becomes "Lee Harvey" # 2.

Rudy &
Bernie

Another of the interesting
coincidences of 911 is that Rudy Giuliani just happened to replace
his police commissioner before 911 and put an arguably questionable character
in charge of the city's security, Bernie Kerik. The appointment was
not exactly unanimous as some described Mr. Kerik as a somewhat
shady figure with allegations of possible criminal connections.

As 9/11 coincidence would
have it, Giuliani put Kerik in place as New York police commissioner just
one year before 9/11. The two then left immediately after 2001, when
Rudy was replaced by new incoming mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Mr. Kerik can be seen in
the following video, racing up the street during a Giuliani press
interview where he impatiently
grabbed Rudy's arm as he was starting to answer a question on what
the current situation was. Kerik then peeled away, shaking his head
no as he faded back into the street crowd.

After 9/11, Mr. Kerik was indicted
six years later on 14 counts of criminal corruption and tax charges.

Run Rudy
Run

Many New Yorkers tell a
different story of Mr. Giuliani from what the national press has
officially painted him out to be. New Yorkers have openly criticized
Rudy for running through the streets in a near panic after the WTC
towers destruction, with no clear cut plan for action.

Giuliani has also taken
extensive heat for purchasing faulty radio equipment which is blamed
as the reason for the firefighters not hearing the evacuation order
before the towers imploded.

Since 2001, Giuliani and
his PR people have used the 9/11 event as a springboard for a 2008
presidential bid, saying that Rudy was a leader, even going so far
as to proclaim him "America's Mayor."

If Rudy did such an
outstanding job on 9/11, then why is his official video testimony
before the 911 Commission not listed with the official records in
the National Archives? Could it possibly be due to all the fallen
firefighter families who were screaming out at Rudy about the radios
that didn't work, not to mention other unfavorable comments
regarding his handling of 9/11?

The fact that Rudy is
making a run for the White House and his critical video testimony
before the 9/11 Commission is left out of the National Archives
official records is a somewhat glaring omission. Hopefully that clerical
error will soon be corrected at the oft heralded
National Archives.

Rudy &
Company

Last, but certainly not
least, are the recently surfaced rumors of "Mr. 911" having
ties to the man who let the mastermind of 9/11 escape. How ironic is
that? The Village Voice has the story below.

After 9/11, many of
Giuliani's New York officials from 9/11 have now joined him in a new venture
known as
Giuliani Partners. Among
their many services are security, public safety, and emergency
preparedness, to name but just a few.

The team includes these former key New York City officials:

Former Police Commissioner, Bernard
Kerik

Former Fire Commissioner, Thomas Von
Essen

Former OEM Commissioner, Richard
Sheirer.

These are obviously some very key
figures from 9/11.

By the way, OEM is the Office of
Emergency Management, the agency credited with warning Rudy that the
towers were actually going to fall.
Rudy and his new team later established a bio-hazard clean-up
company called
BioOne
to disinfect anthrax contaminated buildings, allowing Rudy to
actually profit from the terror attacks immediately following 9/11.
BioOne cleaned up the last building to be disinfected after the
anthrax attacks, the American Media building in Boca Raton, Florida.
BioOne then
took over the building.

The
Flight 93 Lie

Another incongruity about
the 9/11 story is what actually happened to Flight 93 that
supposedly crashed over Pittsburgh? It was said that the brave
passengers forced their way into the cockpit and struggled valiantly
with the terrorists. That may very well be the case, but why are there so many
reports out of Pennsylvania saying the wreckage was scattered for
over six to eight miles?

Six to eight miles!

People reported finding
airplane parts, seating, luggage and personal items, including body
parts, strewn across
their lawns. How is this possible if the plane crashed as they said
it did? Do luggage and clothing actually bounce eight miles?

The fact is, there were
multiple wreckage sights from the crash.

The only possible way that
airplane remains could have been so broadly scattered is if the
plane had exploded very high in the air. But why not tell us it
exploded? Why not tell us of a justifiable air-strike from our
fighters to prevent the hijacked plane from reaching its target?

Many eyewitnesses said
they heard and saw a jet fighter plane fly into the vicinity and
then back out again, just before they heard a loud explosion. One
eyewitness, a woman named Val McClatchey heard the explosion and was
able to grab her camera and catch a picture of a smoke cloud hanging
in the air over Somerset County, rumored by many to be United
Airlines Flight 93 after it allegedly exploded in the sky over
Pennsylvania and then crashed into a field.

If the plane had crashed,
as the official report states, what happened to all of that
flammable jet fuel? Why wasn't there a raging fire with trees
burning out of control at the alleged crash site?

An EPA investigation of
the site was said to have found no jet fuel in the soil or water,
even though the plane should have had a significant amount remaining
in its tanks. Where did it go if the plane truly crashed and there
was no raging fire on the ground?

Photo source:
Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Copyright Val McClatchey

There were many reports of
the wreckage in the local papers. Those reports did not make it to
the national news for some reason. A paper in Idaho of all places
did pick up the story, but not the national media.

Reports from Cleveland
afterwards refuted that report and claimed instead that it was a
mistaken flight from Boston, flight 1989. It is interesting to note
that even though flight 1989 was apparently not being hijacked, no one
was able to identify and distinguish the plane from flight 93 while
still in the air, even though flight 1989 would have had full radio
contact and its transponders on and working.

So what is the real story
of Flight 93? One thing certainly seems clear, whatever the flight
number, the aircraft over Pennsylvania was blown up in the air,
either by missile strike or an explosive device onboard the plane.
It did not plow into the ground and explode on contact as the
official report would have you believe.

Body parts and clothing do
not bounce, nor explode outward, for over eight miles away from an
airplane crash-site. The multiple locations of crash site debris,
spread over eight miles, would seem to contradict the official story
of the plane crashing into a field.

So why would the government
possibly cover-up the legitimate shooting down of Flight 93 over
Pennsylvania?

Maybe
it's because then they would have to explain why they didn't
shoot down Flight 77over Washington, DC.

Flight 77 was reportedly tracked from well over 50
miles out, so there was clearly plenty of time to shoot that plane
down too, yet for some strange reason, it still got through and somehow
hit the Pentagon, killing many military and Pentagon personnel.

[ see Norman Mineta testimony to
the 9/11 Commission ]

More
Questions Than Answers

Emergency officials found
and recovered an airplane engine three blocks from the World Trade
center. The engine found was identified as a
CFM56, but that flies
in the face of the official story regarding the hijacked planes
hitting the towers.

The CFM56 is used for 737
aircraft, not 767s as were alleged to have been flown into the WTC
towers.

According to a
Boeing 767 airline mechanic, "No 767 in existence uses CFM56s.
Not enough power to lift a 67."

The
CFM56 engine found three blocks from the WTC in NY is the
primary engine of the Boeing 737, not the Boeing 767 alleged
to have struck the South Tower.

If a 767 didn't hit the
tower, what 737 did hit it? And what happened to the hijacked 767?

Pentagon
Attack Questions

Strangely enough, a
similar finding was discovered at the Pentagon as well, an engine
that did not fit the description of what should have been
attached to the airliner. What they found instead in Washington was
an engine alleged to be different from the hijacked airliner.

Apparently Boeing
offered two different engine options for customers of the 757-200.
An airline could pick between the Rolls-Royce RB211 or the Pratt &
Whitney PW2000.

John W.
Brown, a spokesman for Rolls Royce of Indianapolis, said this about
the engine part in the photo below, "It is not a part from any
Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE
3007H made here in Indy."

Some have speculated from
these and other crash photos that the
engine found at the Pentagon was very much like in New York,
from a 737, not a 757 or a 767. That's a huge difference.

How does a hollow aluminum
skinned aircraft, traveling less than mach speed, manage to
penetrate three rings of the Pentagon? Have you ever
seriously stopped to think about that feat? That's like trying to
push a pop can through a cement slab. How did that happen?

Each ring of the Pentagon
is reported to be a foot and a half of steel reinforced concrete.
That's literally over seven and a half feet of super-hardened
concrete and brick, all of which is buffered by office
infrastructure and dead courtyard space between the building rings.
That's a lot to fly through!

How does an aluminum
skinned plane go through all that, again at less than mach speed?

The Pentagon Knew It Was
Coming

The sad fact is, even
though they appeared to be caught with their pants down, the
Pentagon had to know this attack was coming. DOT head Norman Mineta
testified before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney was tracking
the Pentagon attack object from deep below the White House in the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center, from well over 50 miles
out. That means that the Pentagon also had to be tracking the
object as well. There is no reason to expect that the PEOC could
monitor the object and the Pentagon couldn't. They both saw the
attack coming. The big question is, why then didn't they evacuate
the building? At least allow the non-military personnel to
leave. Instead, 184 people died as a direct result of that attack.

Strangely enough, the
attack marked the 60th anniversary of the official groundbreaking of
the Pentagon, to the day. The Pentagon was started on September
11th, 1941. All in all, quite a remarkable birthday.

Where's
The Pentagon Video?

There are a multitude
of security cameras around the Pentagon that quite obviously recorded what
actually hit the Pentagon. Make no mistake about it, tape does
exist. There was also surveillance video from the roof of a
neighboring hotel and another from a nearby gas station. There were
even traffic video tapes from the DOT. All of those video tapes
were confiscated by government officials.

The video of the hotel and
the gas station were finally released, probably because they were
too far away and really showed nothing except for the explosion. So
why not release the DOT traffic videos if they released the other
tapes? Those DOT videos have not been released or shown to this day.

Why?

We were all able to clearly
see the planes fly into the WTC towers, many at very close angles.
In none of the numerous videos and film taken do the planes
fly so fast that we cannot see them in the footage. Why then can we
not make out the object that hits the Pentagon? Why would they only
allow a few frames to be seen?

What is most interesting
in the few frames shown is that a white vapor trail can be made out
just before impact. Since jet planes don't leave vapor trails at
such a low altitude, could this be evidence of a missile impact
instead?

It's very clear that the
Pentagon has a number of outdoor video surveillance cameras
that captured the event. They also had all the extra video footage
from the DOT, the hotel and the gas station. The only footage
they've released so far was too far away to see anything at all.
What a coincidence.

Why not release the close
up video from the rooftop cameras, or other Pentagon surveillance
video?

They've already told us
what happened, so they can't possibly claim a National Security
concern. That argument has no apparent merit.

One claim is that they
need to retain the evidence in case of further court proceedings.

How would releasing the
attack footage possibly impinge upon any legal proceedings? Again,
the government has already been on the record numerous times with
accounts and transcripts that can already be called into a court of
law. What about the video then is so sensitive that it cannot be
shown before a possible criminal trial convenes?

Does this conversely mean
that all video of the planes hitting the WTC cannot be shown in
court, or are now tainted evidence due to their pre-trial release?

And just when is that
trial going to begin, so we can finally have the full video release?
Wasn't that trial originally just for Moussaoui?

The full footage would
without a doubt show the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, so why
not show it in its entirety and put the rumors to rest?

Even the latest Pentagon
release was not sufficient in frames to show the public the entire
event. If the aircraft that hits the Pentagon is actually traveling
so fast that video cameras cannot record it as they did the WTC,
then we need to seriously question how an object can do this when it
was clearly reported to be traveling at less than mach speed.

If they can show us
footage over and over again of planes hitting the World Trade Center
towers, why won't they show us the video of the alleged airliner
hitting the Pentagon?

Seize
All Pentagon Video!

Our government seized any
and
all video of the Pentagon strike and has kept it hidden from the
public to this day. They seized private property, in the form of
surveillance video from, the Sheraton Hotel rooftop camera, the Washington DC DOT
highway cameras, and
a gas station security camera across the street from the Pentagon.

Gas station attendant Jose
Velasquez said, "I've never seen what the
pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."-
National Geographic
(12/11/01)

Of all the numerous cameras
that the Pentagon has focused on its own exterior, the only video they
will show of the attack is but just a few incomplete frames.

Why not the whole video?

Pentagon explosion shown from distant
remote CCTV camera.

One can only conclude that
there was something there that we were not supposed to see. Or perhaps
just as importantly, maybe it was something that wasn't there.

The Pentagon Eyewitnesses

Many people have
come forward to give firsthand accounts of as eyewitnesses to the
Pentagon attacks in Washington, DC.

What about the report
from CNN's Jamie McIntyre who says "From my close-up inspection,
there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon."

Hard to say that a 757
actually hit the Pentagon from the testimony of McIntyre, but
nevertheless, something did hit the building.

Mr. McIntyre will more
than likely tell you to this day that he indeed believes that a
plane did hit the Pentagon, however it is his very thorough on-sight
visual scrutiny and testimony that is very telling in its
description. It is his visual surveillance of the area that
corroborates the absence of commonly found large airliner pieces at
plane crash sights and calls into question of what really happened
at the Pentagon.

The pristine lawn of the Pentagon. Where
is the wreckage?

The trillion-dollar
war question is, what was it that actually crashed into the
Pentagon?

Where were the wing marks
from the plane's impact on the building?

Where were the ground
markings?

And why was there only
minor scattered debris instead of the major wreckage from a 757?
Large airliners have hit mountains, buildings and crashed into the
ground many times before, but in every case they all let major
identifiable debris.

What happened to the large
titanium engines? Only one engine turbine was found and it clearly
did not fit that of flight 77.

Official Attack Trajectory Is Wrong

A film called the
PentaCon
from Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke presents very credible
eyewitnesses from the nearby CitGo gas station that are absolutely
certain on which direction the plane came from. All were asked to
independently draw a map showing the location and trajectory of the
attack on the Pentagon. Every drawing was exactly the same, with
all showing a clearly different trajectory than the officially
stated flight path.

The following maps
were drawn independently of each other,
all with the same corroborating results. Each map shows the
plane on the North side, to the left of the gas station,
not the right, or the South side as the official story
claims.

This is very important
because now you have to explain why the light poles were knocked
down in a line on the south side of the gas station, as per the
original reports, and not the north side.

Sergeant Lagasse has a
different take on this, claiming the light poles to the south of the
station were never knocked down at all. Lagasse states that
the light poles were knocked down along the path from the north
side of the gas station, not the south.

How did these light poles
get reported in the press as being knocked down along a path on the
south side of the gas station? Is Lagasse wrong, or was the light
pole evidence purposefully planted, as suggested by some?

This author's take is,
don't rule out planted evidence. In New York we have an engine
not from a 767. We have a paper passport that supposedly survived
the flaming fireball, from an alleged hijacker that was never on the
flight and is still alive. In the Pentagon we have an engine rotor
that is not from a 757. We also have small pieces of wreckage
closely resembling an American Airlines plane, but with the wrong
paint scheme, and no signs of charring.

Citgo gas station is circled in yellow.

More investigation is
obviously needed here to clarify the Pentagon issue. With but one far away CCTV video clip it is hard to see what actually hit the
building.
One thing that you can see in that footage is that there was
a vapor trail. That is a huge key.

While it is near impossible to make out
the shape of a 757 airliner, one thing that does appear quite
noticeably is the white vapor trail just before impact. Jet
airliners make vapor trails at high altitudes, not low
altitudes, but missiles on the other hand do produce trails.

It has to be noted that
the CCTV frames released from the Pentagon do not show a plane
flying over the Pentagon, but at that speed and with CCTV
technology it would be quite easy for anyone to edit the plane
out, if someone wanted to hide the decoy. This possibility
cannot be discounted out of hand because it is indeed possible.

Researcher Jim Fetzer
claims that a man named Dave Ball saw a plane actually do a flyover
of the Pentagon, but like so many 9/11 eyewitnesses, he is now dead.

Until new video is released from the multiple, surrounding video
cameras, the lone Pentagon CCTV footage has to be considered with
careful scrutiny.

Without further DC
video evidence, it is critical to carefully asses the gas station eyewitnesses whose testimony is in direct conflict with the official
flight trajectory path. There is much disinformation that has been
purposefully stirred into the 9/11 event. Could the testimony be an
attempt to discredit the missile theory?

It is interesting to note that both
police officers are certain they saw the plane logo, however Brooks
says he saw "United" in blue letters on the side of the plane and
Lagasse says he distinctly saw "American Airlines." For two trained
professionals to have such a close-up view and yet both have
distinctly different recollections
of the airline name is interesting. One says A, the other says B.
Again, that's an interesting dichotomy for trained professionals.

It is notable to mention that Lagasse
actually claims to have reviewed many 9/11 websites on his own. He argues that
the knocked down light poles were not where they were
reported to be. He claims there were fallen light poles from the
path of the plane, coming from the north side, not the side
south of the gas station as reported.

Why not just release the
numerous security camera videos from the roof of the Pentagon, or
else release the DOT video from Washington DC? These videos would
immediately show us what happened, but instead they have been
withheld since 9/11.

Since when have 911
emergency tapes been off limits to the press or the public? So far,
New York City and Washington D.C. both top the list, and all with
audio from the same day and the same event.

Only some of the New York
tapes have been released, while no audio has been released to this
day on the D.C. 911 call tapes.

Why withhold any of the
911 emergency dispatch tapes?

Maybe it's because there
are too many eyewitness descriptions that do not match up with the
official story.

If the trajectory is
indeed as these eyewitnesses claim, then the fallen light poles need
to be explained, as they were nowhere near the actual flight path.
Were there actual downed light poles on the South side of the gas
station, or were they actually on the North side of the station, as
officer Lagasse claims?

The theory of the PentaCon
documentary is that there was no missile or plane strike. The
movie's producers claim that the Pentagon explosion came from
charges detonated in the wall of the building. This may or may not
be true. What is most interesting from the
film is the fact that there are four eyewitnesses who say the plane
path was not from the South side of the gas station, but from the
North. That is clearly contrary to initial reports on the
DC flight path.

Is it tangible evidence,
or calculated disinformation? One thing is for certain, with little
evidence to go on, the jury is still out on DC.

Where is the plane?

The biggest mystery of the Pentagon
attack is the obvious... where is the plane?

So far, all we have are a few highly
questionable remnants that do not resemble anything from a 757. This
is atypical for an aircraft crash scene. There are always obvious
pieces left behind, such as the tail section, the engines, and the
black box, the last two items having significant titanium construction
involved, however, in the case of the Pentagon we have none of these
to be found.

These crucial remains would not just
disappear into thin air, yet we are left with none of this from
flight 77, save for a questionable wheel hub and engine rotor that
do not match up with a 757.

What we are being told is that this
plane literally melted into nothing.

If that is the case, where are the
solidified vestiges of once molten aluminum? Surely a plane as large
as a 757, if it melted, would leave hardened metal remains
after it cooled. We are being led to believe that the plane melted,
and then the molten metal just vaporized into thin air, never
cooling again to a solid form.

Despite the absurdity of this premise,
those propagating this outlandish scenario would have us believe
that human remains were somehow left behind for investigators to do
DNA analysis on. These are two absolute absurdities in one very
poorly conceived, unscientific explanation.

If the
plane was supposedly vaporized in a fireball (an aviation first) and
melted completely, then how were officials able to find enough body
parts and human remains to allegedly identify the passengers on the
plane?

Metal melts, but flesh and
bone remain to be identified?

Yeah, right.

While we're at it, why
isn't the hole in the building much larger? It clearly doesn't fit a
757 airliner.

There are unbroken windows all around the
impact area. They were apparently special blast-proof windows, but
collision-proof is an entirely different matter. That being the case, where did the wings and tail
section impact? Surely they would have shattered some of those
windows, no matter how blast proof they may have been. Why are there no discernable markings on the facade where these
monsters of metal most surely collided?

So where are the wings and
the tail section? There are no marks on the building and no entry
holes where they could have been forced into the building. There is
no physical possible way that they could have folded or collapsed
neatly together to slide into a hole already too small for the body
of a 757 to fit through. Look at the hole before the building
collapsed at 10:10. It just isn't possible for these key remnants to
be missing like that.

What happened to the
mammoth titanium engines?

Where are any of the seats
and plane parts inside the Pentagon?

What about the landing
gear found that does not match a 757?

The official story is once again the one
that strains all good reason and science, leaving the narrative to
exist on naive credulity alone.

Pentagon
Lawn Evidence Scrutinized

Remember the piece of
wreckage that was found that had the alleged American Airlines
markings on it? There were some pieces found, yet the photos appear
to raise more questions than they answer.

The outer
lawn showed none of this debris, as it should have. There were a few
small pieces of metal that had questionable paint marks that
resembled an American Airlines plane, however... a careful analysis of these
few
pieces on the lawn shows some visible discrepancies in the paint
markings.

One oddity
is that they had a light blue background which American Airlines
planes do not possess. The plane itself is unpainted silver
aluminum, other than the striping and lettering.

Another
notable oddity is that the pieces showed no charring whatsoever,
despite the massive fireball that was shown in the Pentagon CCTV
photos. No evidence of fire whatsoever.

A third anomaly is the
white stroking around the lettering. If you zoom in on the
picture in PhotoShop, you can clearly see the rivets in the metal.
The problem is, the white stroke around the red American Airlines
lettering is only three rivets wide, at best.

Click the link above for
the larger picture and note the difference in the white stroking
from the alleged wreckage found on the Pentagon lawn and an American
Airlines 757. The difference is striking.

One rivet was copied and
then pasted as many times as possible to measure the width of the
white stroke in the American Airlines plane lettering. The stroke
width was barely wide enough for three rivet heads. That's pretty
small compared to what you actually see on the side of an American
Airlines 757. (see larger graphic
at link above.)

So the question is, is
this an actual piece from an American Airlines jet or was it
something else, painted with the markings of American
Airlines?

Impossible Rookie
Maneuver?

How does a rookie pilot
who is described by flight instructors as inept at flying, possibly
make the incredible maneuvers that flight 77 is alleged to have
made? Veteran pilots say this is impossible in a 757 and most
certainly would have caused a stall. DC Air traffic
controllers actually thought they were viewing a military plane due
to its complex maneuvers.

Even if
Hani Hanjour could miraculously survive that first stunt, how does
he then perform another impossible feat by flying a commercial jetliner only mere feet off the ground at over 400
to 500 mph and still hit the Pentagon without tipping the wings into
the ground or leaving a profound wake of turbulence?

To be
clear, the official story would have us all believe that a rookie pilot
was able to perform not one, but two complicated maneuvers,
extraordinary feats that any seasoned, veteran commercial airline
pilot would admit as being physically impossible to do in a 757.

And we're
supposed to think the 9/11 truth movement are the ones propagating
conspiracy theory?

Seriously?

Some people say that
conspiracy theorists take liberty with their interpretation of the
evidence. One could certainly argue that the Pentagon maneuver by a
rookie pilot is closer to conspiracy theory than anything else.

Too Hot
To Handle?

Why was radioactive dust
found in the air after the Pentagon strike?

One of the
most ignored aspects of the DC attack is the undeniable fact that
the Pentagon lawn was hot with radiation after the crash. Radiation
experts took readings following the Pentagon strike and were shocked
to find elevated levels.

According to radiation expert Leuren
Moret, "I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am
highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear
radiation contamination. What happened at the
Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with
a depleted uranium warhead may have been used."

Moret is not alone in her assessment and
is backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a physics PhD and
former top military expert who said, "When you look at the whole
thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of
the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact
penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a
missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a
missile. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash
hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also
looks like a missile was used."

Moret states that on
9/11 she called a close friend, radiation expert Dr. Janette Sherman
in Alexandria, VA. Already suspecting radiation, she asked Sherman
to take some Geiger counter readings. Being downwind from the
Pentagon, her Geiger counter readings displayed very high readings
of radiation, well over eight to ten times higher than normal. On
9-11 Sherman's readings were 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm).
One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, a town 33 miles northwest of the
Pentagon, soil measurements in a local neighborhood displayed higher
readings yet, hitting 75 to 83 cpm.

The pair contacted the
FBI, as well as the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), and
also the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal radiation
experts corroborated the high radiation levels at the Pentagon
crash.

What followed however was not what
the two researchers expected. Their findings were completely ignored
by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission. The story
died an immediate death in the mainstream media, never to be
repeated again.

Coincidentally enough the
ground area around the Pentagon crash sight was totally covered
over since the reconstruction. It's curiously interesting that the
Pentagon lawn
was buried and covered over after the 911 attack.

More
Classified Dispatch Tapes?

Once again, coincidentally
enough, as in New York, the audio from the 911 dispatch tapes was
been clarified for Washington. What could emergency dispatchers
possibly have said to first responders in both New York and
Washington DC to be classified from the public?

One thought is because,
like in New York, the audio provides a contrary record of witness
testimony that does not support the official theory for the event.

Many witnesses reported
seeing the plane come in from the north side of the Citgo station,
not the south side where the light poles were knocked down.

If that's the case, then
what knocked the light poles down?

Could a plane possibly
have come from the north side of the Citgo gas station and a cruise
missile from the south side?

Why classify the 911
emergency audio tapes, plus all of the public video tapes of the
event, not to mention the countless Pentagon rooftop video camera
surveillance footage?

Many argue that there is
critical eyewitness testimony that is being suppressed, or else we
would have already been shown definitive video by now, much like
with the New York attacks.

Setting
the Country Up?

Our government did two things just prior to September 11th that,
whether intended or not, undeniably gave the hijackers a much better chance of success:

June 1, 2001 - The
airplane shoot-down order is changed. The Department of Defense (DOD) initiated new instructions for
military assistance
relating to aircraft hijackings which states that for all
non-immediate responses,
assistance from the DOD must get approval from the Secretary of
Defense, or
the President of the United States.

July 2001
-
The FAA bans guns in the cockpit just prior to 9/11. Armed pilots
were banned
just two months before
9/11. A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that
allowed airline
pilots to be armed was dropped without explanation just two months before the
9/11 terrorist
attacks.

It's easy to now see in
retrospect how these two changes, whether intended or not, clearly
gave the hijackers a much better chance to succeed with their plan.

Who Could Ever
Suspect Airplanes As Weapons?

George Bush and many
within his administration echoed one argument over and over after
9/11, "How could anyone have possibly suspected terrorists would
use airplanes as weapons?"

For anyone in high
government to say this had never
before been thought of, nor ever prepared for, it calls into
question their total ignorance and/or strange absence from our
country's security loop, or possibly their own personal disdain for
the telling the truth.

Coincidental Confusing War Games

The uncanny fact
that our government was conducting not one, but at least three
terror
drills in the air on 9/11 while the attacks were underway is
disturbing for a number of reasons. First and foremost, many of the fighter pilots and
flight controllers claim this is the number one reason why they were confused as to
whether the hijackings were "real world" or simply part of
a
drill.

NORAD
control room NEADS.

With at least three
reported terrorist drills taking place during the 9/11 attacks,
confusion was hard to avoid. If you wanted confusion in the skies
that day, you couldn't have engineered it any better.

With that many government
exercises running at once, are we to believe that no one in the
government or military foresaw that there might be conflicts with
real world traffic control?

What steps were taken by
DOD and others to alleviate this possible security threatening
scenario?

If no precautionary
steps taken can be verified, a case could clearly be made for negligence
in the planning of those mass exercises. Someone definitely should
have lost their job for the unmistakable short sided planning and
coordination of those military exercises. The precaution against
confusion should quite obviously have been considered and should be
noted somewhere in the planning of the exercise.

Fact: The
U.S.
government was running at leastfour or more major military exercises at the time
of the 9/11 attacks. Some clain over a dozen exercises were in play.
The four most noted were...

Operation Northern Vigilance was a joint exercise being performed with Canada
to monitor a Soviet exercise near Alaska.

Operation Global
Guardian was said to be an Armageddon exercise, conducted at Offutt
AFB in Omaha, Nebraska and also Barksdale AFB in Shreveport,
Louisiana. Coincidentally these two locations just happen to be the
two bases Bush flew to when he left Florida aboard Air Force One.
(Warren Buffet was also said to be at Offutt AFB).

Operation Vigilant
Guardian a
week long exercise conducted by NORAD that simulated an attack on
the U.S.

The NRO (National
Reconnaissance Office) was holding an exercise which depicted the
scenario of an airplane as an attack weapon crashing into the
building.

The coordination of
all these events timed with the 9/11 attacks is eerily too
coincidental, if not just unbelievable. The possibility of all
these events happening concurrently is not random coincidence
as some would have us believe. That in itself would be a good
example of what "conspiracy theory" really is.

This is
understandably what lends
support to the inside job theory. Either a mole within our
government intel, or factions within an intel group itself,
exploited this perfect window of timing and the veiled guise and
opportunity it presented to its perpetrators, or this is the wildest
coincidence since the alleged "magic bullet" theory.

Could It Get Any
Worse?

The list certainly doesn't
stop there. Many other unexplainable
"coincidences" which aided the alleged terrorists on 9/11 were...

On September 6, a two week
heightened security alert at the World Trade Center was conveniently lifted and
all bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed from the premises.

The morning of 9/11, video
cameras positioned high atop the World Trade Center which were used
to feed daily images to local television stations were for some
strange reason suddenly not working.

It makes you wonder, who
was running the security for the World Trade Center?

9/11
Security Connections

There are many questions
regarding the security involved with entities involved with 9/11.

There were also very curious and quite
disturbing American security connections

As 9/11
coincidence would have it, there are a couple of interesting names involved with
the WTC security; The first was none other than Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother,
and the second was Wirt D. Walker III, cousin to the Bush brothers.

Wirt D. Walker was
the company CEO of Securacom from 1999 until 2002, while Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom
from 1993 until 2000. It is reported that they had a new security
system installed in the World Trade Center between 1996 and 2000.

The glaring issue
in all of this is that their security firm is reported to have run
not only the World Trade Center security, but quite coincidentally
enough, the electronic security for Dulles
International Airport where terrorists were alleged to have boarded,
and also the security for United Airlines, one of the hijacked airliners
involved. (Securacom hanndled electronic security, while the Israeli
firm ICTS screened passengers.)

Now that's truly a
really weird coincidence. What on earth are the odds for that?

The company, now called Stratesec,
is in Sterling, Virginia and was reportedly backed by an investment
firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation, rumored to be linked for years to the Bush family.

Barry McDaniel, CEO for
the company, said
they had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the
World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

An
interesting side-note: Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec
coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston
Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He
later left the
board in November 2002.

Seriously. How
utterly convenient to go straight from the disaster to the insurance
carrier covering the property affected in the disaster.

It's probably just
another wild 9/11 coincidence.

Many try to say that HCC
was not part of the nine companies that insured the WTC, but a check
of New York City court documents clearly shows that they were part
of the Silverstein lawsuit.

Evidence Of
Prior Government Knowledge?

On September 10, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled
travel plans for a September 11 trip, apparently because of security concerns. (MSNBC
(09/24/01)

On September 10, then San Francisco Mayor
Willie Brown was
reportedly called by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and
warned not to fly on 9/11. (SF Chronicle)

Why has a story such as
this been buried in the mainstream American media?

The Rumsfeld Reaction

At 8:44 in the morning on
9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was in his private dining room at the
Pentagon talking about missile
defense and the impending risk of terrorism. Rumsfeld predicted there
would be a
terrorist attack soon.

“Let me tell ya,” he said, “I’ve been around the block a few times.
There will be another
event.”- Fayetteville Observer/AP
(09/16/01)

Two
minutes later the first plane struck the WTC.

Later, for the second time that morning, Rumsfeld predicted
another terrorist
attack.

Rumsfeld was reported to be meeting
that morning with Christopher Cox, the
Defense Policy
Committee Chairman of
the House of Representatives.

Cox said, "Mr Rumsfeld watched
the TV coverage
from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's
going to be another attack, and it could be us." Moments later, the
plane hit."- Telegraph UK (12/16/01)

Just seven minutes after
Rumsfeld's
comments, the second tower was struck.

Absolutely unbelievable. Sylvia Brown should be so
psychic.

The Pentagon strike came
soon thereafter, but at that point Rumsfeld made himself unavailable
by abandoning his post and his sworn duty to protect the
country from foreign attack. Instead of coordinating the defense of
the country, Rumsfeld decided to go outside onto the Pentagon lawn
to assist with rescue efforts, a task not part of his defense
responsibilities.

What Rumsfeld did was to
effectively remove himself from duty, until all hijacked planes had
crashed. Why he was not helping coordinate this country's defense is
unknown and most suspicious for the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Many
have speculated that it was so he could remove himself from the
chain of command long enough so that he did not have to give the
shoot down order. (The same has been said for Bush.)

The important point to
recognize is that Rumsfeld himself predicted that the Pentagon could
be hit. When it was hit, he quickly raced outside, away from his
sworn duties as the Secretary of Defense. He already knew after the
first two New York attacks that this was considered by everyone to
be an attack on the U.S., an act of war. How could he
possibly have known that there weren't going to be more attacks on
more U.S. cities?

The fact is, by running
out onto the Pentagon lawn, he was shirking his official duties in
directing a defense of the country.

The fact is, his presence
helping attend to injured personnel on the lawn added nothing
to that effort, however, his absence from his post adversely
subtracted from an effective defense of the country.

One month later, Rumsfeld talked as if the
9/11 Pentagon strike was actually from a missile. On October 12,
2001 he gave an interview to Parade magazine in which he said the
following.

"It is
a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any
technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and
every place against every conceivable technique.
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American
Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to
damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World
Trade Center."- Parade Magazine (10/12/01)

Then, in December
of 2004, he slipped again when he spoke as if the plane that crashed
on 9/11 in Pennsylvania was actually shot down.

"And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world
we would
face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or
the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who
attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over
Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off
peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed
the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize,
to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that
which they want to be." - CNN (12/24/04)

It's important to
understand that a "slip of the tongue" generally occurs with
already known information, something that is already
understood but is meant to be hidden, yet is errantly blurted out.
When you have a slip of the tongue, you do not invent new things to
blurt out. That would be called just making stuff up, or
basically, lying.

A slip of the tongue is
generally an unwanted disclosure, most always at an inopportune
time. Rumsfeld's slips are interesting because they just so happen
to match the conventional wisdom
and truth that is suspected by so many 9/11 researchers.

The
Cheney Reaction

Probably the most
disturbing story of all from the attacks is Norman Mineta's
testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta relayed an unsettling
story from the Presidential Emergency Operating Center regarding
Vice President Cheney on the morning of 9/11 as the plane approached
the Pentagon. He recounted the story of a young man who kept coming into the
room and giving Cheney a progress report on how far the plane was
from the Pentagon.

The Pentagon attack was no
surprise. Much like Pearl Harbor, they had advance warning that an
attack was coming. They tracked the object from well over 50
miles out and yet did not shoot it down. Some say it was tracked
from well over 80 miles out.

Norman Mineta testifying
before 9/11 Commission

"During the time
that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young
man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is
50 miles out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to
'The plane is 10 miles out' the young man said to the Vice
President, 'Do the orders still stand.' And the Vice President
turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders
still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'" Testimony of U.S. Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission. (5/23/03)

This is truly a shocking
revelation. Number one, it proves that they had a chance to shoot
the object down, long before it slammed through three rings of the
Pentagon.

Number two, it shows
that a shoot-down order was finally in place, yet a
particular order, apparently under the authority of Cheney, was being questioned
at the time by the young man.

What was the order being
questioned by the young man?

Why wasn't the plane shot
down if there was indeed a shoot-down order in place?

If Mineta's account
is true, one can
derive two basic facts from his testimony and the events that
unfolded on 9/11...

1) According to
Cheney, "the order" was still intact.

2) The attack on the
Pentagon was certainly no surprise.

From that far out, at
least 50 miles, even antiquated 1960s ballistic missile technology could have
easily taken that plane out of the air.

Why was it not shot down
if a shoot down order was in place?

They watched the plane on
radar for over 50 miles as it headed into the Pentagon and yet,
mysteriously, they took no action. Why?

This is an easy hit
for the military. Why didn't they shoot it down?

If the order was
still standing, why was the plane not shot down?

So what was the order?

Why was Cheney annoyed
with the questioning of that order?

Since there was no
reported attempt to shoot the plane down, one could surmise that
the order being questioned may have been contrary to the shoot-down order,
allowing the alleged plane, or "object," to hit the Pentagon.

Eyewitness examines Pentagon right after
attacks.

The looming question now
is, did someone not
follow orders, or... did someone follow orders?

Again, the plane was
clearly not shot down, nor was there any acknowledged attempt made to
actually do so.

Ask yourself, after
the first two airline strikes on the World Trade Center, would
anyone within the defense or military establishment actually be
questioning a shoot-down order on a rogue airliner?

If they were
watching the plane from well beyond 50 miles out, that means they
clearly had plenty of time to target the plane and shoot it down, if
they wanted to.

So why didn't they
shoot it down? Is it possible that the order the young man was
questioning was an order to not shoot?

With
Cheney tracking the plane from well over 50 miles out, that means
the Pentagon was no doubt tracking the object as well. With that
thought in mind, why was there no evacuation of the Pentagon?
You would think that at least the non-military personnel would be
allowed to leave. There were 184 people killed as a direct
result of this attack, yet not one news outlet has questioned
Cheney's actions, nor the lack of a Pentagon evacuation.

After
tracking the alleged plane for well over 50 miles, with all that
time, whatever the object was, itwas not shot down and
was seemingly allowed to hit
the Pentagon instead.

Once again, why?

There are numerous
unanswered questions here.

Strange
Target

The fact that this section
of the Pentagon had undergone extensive retrofitting and was made to
withstand this type of attack makes it another odd coincidence of
9/11. Why not come straight in and hit the area where Rumsfeld was?
That was an easy hit.

Rumsfeld's office was the easiest hit.
Why go around?

Why not hit the White
House? That was also within the flight path.

This is quite a strange
oddity if you take the time to think about it. Why not take the
direct easiest approach with the most damage to our Defense
Department? How reasonable is it to expect that a bad rookie
pilot could pull a near impossible maneuver with the
alleged aircraft in order to hit this special area?

How does a rookie pilot pull this
maneuver?

And what of the people
that were in this new section that was not yet supposed to be
finished for another two days? While not at its intended capacity,
there were still many stationed there that specific
morning. One occupant of the new hardened section was Naval
Intelligence and the Navy Command Center. This is a strategic post
with the military's oldest tactical intelligence center, but they
weren't the only valuable occupants.

What Was
Important About The New Section?

The day before 9/11,
Donald Rumsfeld spoke to the press, saying that the Pentagon had
lost track of $2.3 trillion dollars. Not billions, but TRILLIONS!
That is an enormous amount of money that could very easily be used
to finance covert and black operations, with no accountability to
Congress.

You could also use money
like that for a cover-up, for political and judicial bribes. You
could also use it to hire operatives to do your dirty work. There
are many unscrupulous people in the world that would do anything
immoral just for the sake of money. Whoever was in control of this
money had enormous power at their disposal.

When it comes to the newly
renovated section of the Pentagon that was hit that day, the
credibility for coincidence would be strained once again with the
revelation that the Pentagon accounting service, responsible for
tracking the missing trillions, was relocated to that very section.
It was destroyed on 9/11 along with any paper trails leading to the
missing money. A total of 125
people perished in the Naval
Operations, Naval Intelligence and Navy Command Center, including the accountants and
budget analysts tracking the missing Pentagon money. The search for the missing $2.3 trillion
died as well.

Add this hard to believe
coincidence to the list of unbelievable oddities regarding 9/11. The
missing trillions from the day before 9/11 is just another of the
numerous coincidences that we have been expected to swallow.

April
Gallop Survives to Sue

One of the surviving
Pentagon employees was April Gallop. When she was able to get up,
she crawled out through the hole in the Pentagon and testifies that
she saw no remnants of an airplane crash.

Gallop later sued the U.S.
government for complicity in the attacks, specifically naming Donald
Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Richard Myers. Gallop filed her original first lawsuit
on December 15th, 2008, but a New York District Court threw the case
out. She then appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals whereupon
it was cavalierly tossed out of court, with the reasoning that the
suit was “not plausible” and was the “the product of cynical
delusion and fantasy.”

To add insult to injury, a legal
admonishment was made to the prosecuting attorney for bringing forth
such a suit. One of the three sitting judges just coincidentally
happened to be John Mercer Walker, Jr., the first cousin of former
President George H.W. Bush and the first cousin once removed of
George W. Bush.

How convenient.

Mineta 9/11 Commission
Testimony Edited

Since the 9/11 Commission
hearings, the transcripts and video documentation of the proceedings
have been turned over to the National Archives. Someone there has
decided that the American public does not have a right to see the
entire testimony of Mineta before the 911 Commission. The video of
Mineta has been edited to cut out the entire first half of Mineta's
testimony regarding Cheney and the PEOC situation room on 9/11.

While the record of the
testimony can still be found in the printed transcript, the video
testimony has been edited to remove all the remarks regarding Cheney
tracking the incoming object from over 50 miles out, as well as the
young man's questioning of Cheney's acknowledged order.

It's surprising that they
edited the video, yet left the written transcript as is. For
whatever reason, Mineta's video testimony on Dick Cheney has been cut out
of the 911 Commission files at the National Archives.

This very well could help
explain why some in the government
would possibly cover-up the legitimate shooting down of rogue Flight 93,
because
then they wouldn't have to explain why they didn't
shoot down Flight 77 when they tracked it from well over 50
miles out and undeniably had plenty of time to shoot it down.

Conflicting Testimony

Now that you've seen
Norman Mineta's 911 testimony, watch the 911 commission testimony of
White House counsel Dana Hyde. Her testimony claims that Cheney
hadn't quite made it to the PEOC and was in the hallway outside,
allegedly
making a call to President Bush, when the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

How can this be? Two
conflicting testimonies, under oath, before the 911 commission?

Who's telling the truth?

Cheney's PEOC arrival time
is called into question when comparing the testimony of Mineta
versus Hyde. Mineta's testimony is damning to Cheney. Hyde's
testimony seems to cover Cheney's butt. According to Dana Hyde, Cheney
wasn't in the PEOC at all, thus implying that Mineta's account never happened.

So who is lying and who's
telling the truth?

Why didn't the 911
Commission catch this?

When Did Cheney Reach The
PEOC?

The White House has gone
on record as saying that Vice President Cheney was not in the PEOC
until around 9:38 that morning. Dana Hyde corroborates that version
of the story in her 911 commission testimony. (posted above)

An emotionless Dick Cheney watches as WTC
south tower falls.

Many have speculated that the
reason for this was to avoid calling into question why Bush was not rushed
immediately to a command center at 9:06. Instead,
Bush sat quietly in
a Florida elementary school classroom, taking no action whatsoever
during the entire event, even though he knew it was a direct
unprovoked attack on the United States.

But Cheney himself seems
to set the record straight in a CNN interview.

"It
was a clear day, there were no weather problems, and then we saw the
second airplane hit in real time," Cheney told CNN's John King in an
interview in the vice president's office.

"At
that moment, you knew this was a deliberate act. This was a
terrorist act."

He
called President Bush in Florida and spoke with top aides. Then his
door burst open.

"My
[Secret Service] agent all of a sudden materialized right beside me
and said, 'Sir, we have to leave now.' He grabbed me and propelled
me out of my office, down the hall, and into the underground shelter
in the White House," Cheney said.

In
White House terminology, The room is the PEOC, an acronym for the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

Mineta also brings up an
interesting question as to when Cheney was taken to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center. The looming question being, if Cheney
was rushed by Secret Service early on (9:06am) to the PEOC, then why
wasn't Bush taken early on as well? Why was Bush allowed to sit in
the Florida classroom, despite already established Secret Service
protocol to protect him during a national emergency?

The Bush Reaction

Arguably as bad as the
Cheney story is the account of George W. Bush at Booker Elementary
school in Florida. During an attack on the United States of America,
President Bush, the
Commander in Chief of our military, sat quietly in an elementary school classroom
after being told that our country was under attack.

White House Chief of Staff
Andy Card walked in the room and whispered in the Bush's ear,
"A
second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!"

Andy Card informs Bush of second plane
attack.

But Bush did and said
nothing.

Card told Bush, "A second
plane hit," so why wouldn't Bush presume that more jets were
involved and more cities could soon be hit?

He also said, "America
is under attack," yet Bush still did nothing.

As one of only three persons with the ability
to use the new shoot-down orders for hijacked airliners, (Rumsfeld,
Bush and Cheney) Bush seems to have made himself unavailable at that critical time
while America was
under attack. Why didn't those around the president whisk him
out of the room immediately? Why place the school and children at
risk if the President was a potential target? Bush's location that
morning was public record since September 7th, so it is conceivable
that he too could have been a target, if we were indeed being
attacked by foreign terrorists.

This is not normal
security protocol for a national emergency.

How many lives could have
been spared had the President of the United States / Commander
in Chief reacted much quicker, instead of just sitting there in front of
a class of elementary students with a book about a goat, upside down
in his hands for all the world to see.

Watch the video and
ask yourself why President Bush, again, the Commander in Chief, did
not say one word in reply to Andy Card as he is told that the
United States were under attack by terrorists. Despite not getting up and
excusing himself as he should have, Bush clearly did not tell Card to go to
high alert Defcon status, nor gave him any instructions whatsoever.

He said nothing.

Again, to punctuate the point...
with America under attack, he said absolutely nothing.

More importantly,
why? What possible reason could be good enough to be
strangely mute while the United States of America is under attack
from a foreign threat?

What is interesting is
that Bush was extremelynervous, as evidenced by his
facial expressions depicted in the Booker video from the event.

If Bush was genuinely
worried, he should have stood up and excused himself to leave, yet
his body mannerisms and the upside down book seem to suggest he was
more nervous about something, rather than being worried about more
possible attacks. So as the Commander in Chief, he just sat there,
with no action whatsoever.

This strange lack of
action is undeniably very alarming in its scope and is truly
unprecedented behavior from this country's Commander in Chief during
a time of crisis.

The excuse that was made, for Bush
not getting up to leave, was officially that he did not want to
scare the children.

America was under attack
and yet the Commander in Chief was worried about how not to upset 16
elementary school children in a Florida classroom. What about the
other 290-million Americans who were scared out of their minds while
America was being attacked, all the while wondering where our government
was to help protect us?

Ten years after the
attacks, Bush has tried another tactic to explain his inaction on
9/11. This time Bush claims he was trying to project a sense of
strength and calm to the American people during the attacks.

That new excuse is as
ridiculous as his first excuse. First off, there was no live
television feed going out from the classroom to the nation, so no
one saw his actions except for those in that Florida classroom.
Secondly, how does sitting on your ass project "strength" during an
attack on the United States?

Bush had no
basis for thinking there were no other attacks on other American
cities, so why not at least "calmly" give his Chief
of Staff some marching orders in the face of the first ever alleged
attack on American soil, let alone the country's largest city? How
did he know LA wouldn't be hit, or Chicago, St. Louis or Miami?

George Bush sits idly by in school
classroom while America is under attack.

He cared more about
babysitting and a photo-op rather than doing his job, protecting the
country against attack. And again, he is the one with the brand
new shoot-down orders for just such an event.

But he said and did NOTHING.

Why?

Administration Accountability

From the least case
scenario for the administration, an argument could be made for
criminal negligence. The worst case scenario is without a doubt the
unfathomable, unless of course you're familiar with Operation Northwoods;
government
pre-knowledge of the event and complicity during its execution.

That may seem very far
fetched to most, but do a Google search for
Operation Northwoods (or also Gulf of Tonkin incident) and become horribly enlightened as to what
men in tremendous positions of power are truly capable of within our
own government.

Why did our
self-proclaimed "War President" say nothing and do nothing
once he knew we were under attack from a foreign nation?

Why did our
Commander in Chief literally just sit there until the attacks were
over?

By
the time he finally left Emma Booker Elementary school, the attacks
were over.

Once he made himself
available to his staff, the person who had, two months prior to
9/11, coincidentally been given charge of civilian aircraft shoot
down orders suddenly had no planes that needed to be shot down.

If only Bush hadn't sat in
that school classroom so long, he would have been available to give
that order to shoot down the airplanes.

The President chose
instead to sit with the school children, to keep them
calm he said. History will undeniably
record that this was his utmost priority at the time of our nation's
worst ever attack.

A
Safe Haven

As just one more
of the many assorted coincidences associated with 9/11, Bush was
scheduled to be away from Washington that September day.
Coincidentally enough, he was in the one state where the government
was in the hands of another Bush, in Florida, away from the the
violence of 9/11.

In Florida,
coincidentally enough, his governor brother had strangely
set into motion the procedure for martial law just days prior to September
11th by signing Executive Order 01-261, preparing for a martial law
state.

Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

Florida was then
the very first state to declare a national state of emergency when
Jeb bush signed into law Executive Order 01-262, essentially
declaring martial law on the state of Florida, even though it had
not been attacked by anyone.

Florida was
apparently a very safe place to be.

The Overnight Guest

It is also an
interesting coincidence to note that former President and ex-CIA
Director George HW Bush just happened to fly in and spend the night
at the White House the night before 9/11, even though his son was
not there that night, but was instead in Florida for his Emma Booker
school visit.

Who did the senior
Bush meet with while at the White House that night? Did he meet with
his buddy Dick Cheney?

It is certainly
peculiar timing to show up when his son is gone, on the night before
9/11.

This is another
9/11 oddity that deserves a few questions.

Bush Claims To Witness The First Attack

After the attacks were over,
Bush strangely enough tried to tell everyone that he actually saw the
first plane hit WTC tower one, even though there was still no video
footage yet of the first plane hitting the WTC until much later
on, when the
video was eventually released to the media.

Short of having his own remote live video feed via
satellite, it is impossible for Bush to have witnessed what he said. But
say it he did. Twice!

If Bush misspoke the first time, that's one thing, but to
misspeak twice on a topic of such critical and sensitive importance
is certainly intriguing. Why would anyone even say this once, let alone keep on
saying it? Bush clearly said it twice, at two separate
public events.

"I was sitting
outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the
tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said,
well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible
accident.
"But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about
it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff,
who is sitting over here, walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit
the tower, America is under attack." - President George W. Bush
(12/04/01)

"Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida... I was sitting there
and my Chief of Staff... well first of all, when we walked in the
classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building... there was
a TV set on, and uh, you know I felt it was pilot error."

Bush, in an awkward use of
the English language, may have meant to say that he saw an airplane
HAD hit the tower. Needless to say, since he was aware of the first
crash going into the classroom, it begs the question, why didn't he jump into action
when Andy Card told him about the second plane hitting?

Bush said he didn't want to
upset 16 elementary school kids. The parents must be extremely proud and
very grateful that the U.S. Commander in Chief chose to personally look
after their kids while the U.S. was under attack, rather than abandon them
to that awful classroom so that he could attend to a national crisis to
the nation.

Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain

As if the multiple quotes on
seeing the first plane hit aren't enough, Bush
later had this to say about conspiracy
theories regarding the 9/11 attacks..."Let us never tolerate
outrageous conspiracy
theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that
attempt to shift
the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
-
Nov 10, 2001, UN speech

Why ever would the President
worry himself over 9/11 conspiracy theories just two months after
9/11? Why even bring that up at all?

One thought would be that
perhaps some of the rumors already out there were a little too close
to reality. Remember, it takes an action to get a reaction, and
Bush's comments only two months after 9/11 are an intriguing
reaction, it seems, to something.

Bush Against An Independent Investigation

Last but not least, why did Bush and Cheney
not want an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks, arguably
the single worst attack ever on domestic soil?

Seriously, what possible
reason on this earth is there for not having an independent
investigation into who was responsible for 9/11?

President Bush is on
record and well documented as saying that he did not see the need
for an independent investigation into 9/11.

Bush refused to hold a full
investigation of the 9/11 attacks for over a year, 441 days.
(Sept 12, 2001 to Nov 26, 2002) The Pearl Harbor investigation took
only 11 days to begin.

This is another example
where suspicion is an easy client, due to the strange nature of the
demands by both Bush and Cheney.

When do the police ever
interrogate two parties in the same room at the same time when the
impetus of their investigation is to look for facts as remembered by
the individual being interviewed? They are also looking for
corroboration of facts and incongruities in the story of either
party, so why allow the demand from Bush and Cheney?

If there was truly nothing
to hide, why didn't Bush and Cheney agree to be interviewed
separately, as the 9/11 Commission specifically requested?

Why were so many
restrictions placed on publicly disseminating their testimony once
it was taken?

No oath was allowed

No Transcript was allowed

No recording was allowed

Bush's Chief Counsel, plus
two other White House lawyers had to be present.

If they truly had nothing
to hide, why did they demand that they not be put under oath?

Why were all of these
restrictions put in place if they were truly cooperating and had
nothing to hide?

The
Government Reaction

It's interesting to note
the reaction of the United States government during and after the the 9/11 attack.

Even though the hijacked
airliners were missing from their designated flight path for as much
as 40 minutes, no planes were scrambled in time to intercept the hijacked airliners,
in part due to conflicting
government terror drills going on at the time.

Rudy Giuliani says the
only reason FEMA was in New York the night before 9/11 is because
they were there to conduct their own separate terror drills.

How ironic and
coincidental for our government to be holding drills to prevent
terrorist attacks, while we're actually being attacked by the terrorists?

Larry, Moe and Curly,
couldn't have pulled this one off any better for strategically
timed coincidence.

The
Missing Black Boxes

How is it that all four
back boxes, the flight recorders for the planes, could not be found?
These boxes are made of titanium and are considered fireproof and
indestructible, yet authorities claim they were unable to find them,
even with electronic sweeping efforts.

Interestingly enough,
ground zero rescue worker Mike
Bellone claims to have seen one of the black boxes on his own.
Investigative reporter Dave Lindorff went one further, saying that
he was told off the record by an NTSA employee that all
four black boxes were recovered. News anchor Dan Rather of CBS
News also claimed that a black box had been found, yet strangely
enough the network had technical difficulties when it went to show
the video evidence of their recovery on the evening news.

Donald Rumsfeld confirmed
to ABC news that the back box from flight 77 was pinging,
sending out its locator signal from inside the Pentagon wreckage.
Why didn't they find it then?

BBC News reported that
U.S. officials stated that the black box for flight 93 was found.

So where are these
indestructible titanium black boxes?

The NTSB has a record of
always finding the flight recorders in a crash. They were even able
to find the black box from TWA 800 in the ocean, yet somehow they
were not able to find four such units as they picked through the WTC
rubble for months, piece by piece.

Just one more coincidence
for the list.

FAA
Destroys Interview Tapes

Immediately after the attacks, an FAA manager at the New York Air
Route Traffic Control Center gathered six controllers who had
communicated with, or tracked the hijacked planes, and then
interviewed each of them, recording a one-hour interview of their
personal accounts of what happened that morning. The unnamed FAA
manager said he wanted to provide
quick information to federal officials investigating the
attack.

Later on, a
second manager at the New York center destroyed the tape by crushing it
with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the
pieces into separate trash cans around the building.

Why?

What was on that tape that
was so bad that an FAA manager would destroy it and then go out of
his way to disperse the evidence in separate trash cans?

Perhaps that FAA official
thought that Federal investigators and the US public would be too
stupid to comprehend the tape's content, or was it that he thought
somebody actually would understand.

What was on the tapes that
was bad enough to cause an FAA official to destroy it?

How about this.

According to Karl W.B.
Schwarz, former RNC insider...

"An air traffic
controller in Boston says that American Airlines Flight 11 and
United Airlines Flight 175 took off from Logan Airport and headed
east, not west, and disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean in a single
sweep of the radar.

There are only two ways to account for planes flying above 20,000
feet to disappear that quickly–they were shot down or blown up."
That's quite an extraordinary claim from Mr. Schwarz, but given the
fact of the matter in the shredded air traffic controller interview
tapes, it certainly begs for further investigation.

It makes you wonder if
anyone has ever bothered to try and collect those flight controllers
together again and recreate the interview tapes? That would seem to
be a pretty logical and easy thing to do for an investigating body
that was serious about getting the facts.

"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into
the area or used,
except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a
statement issued by Giuliani's office.

All of a sudden ground zero is starting to sound like the "grassy
knoll."

Why
suddenly say, two weeks after the attacks on 9/11, that no more
pictures of ground zero could be taken?

Story of NYC ground zero photography ban published on
Boston.com

Even the Fresh Kills landfill, just
offshore from NYC, banned all photos and video.

The
feeble excuse given was that ground zero was a crime scene. Nice of
them to figure that out two weeks after the fact. Why allow pictures
right after the attacks, but two weeks later ban all cameras?

It
could also be said that questionable pictures of the steel girders
were beginning to pop up. Pictures that showed irregularities with
the debris.

So
what happened? The steel was picked up and shipped out immediately
to be melted down overseas. This certainly ensured that there would
be no more forensic evidence to have to deal with.

To
add further insult, the Fresh Kills landfill was made off-limits and
declared a crime scene. Well, if the debris was evidence from
a crime scene, what was it doing at a landfill to be disposed of?
They took it to a garbage dump to preserve the integrity of the
evidence? Is that how a criminal investigation operates?

A Bank
Heist, Wire Fraud, And An Investment Option?

Reportedly there were
large gold bar and silver deposits in the WTC vaults, prior to 9/11.
Rumors continue to swirl that a great deal of that wealth seems to
have vanished.

Mayor Giuliani made it a
specific priority to search for the buried $200-million in gold.
He had New York firemen working very hard to find it. Once the gold was
finally recovered, all firemen were then removed from
the pile, all within hours. Why?

Giuliani was asked at the
time by reporters about the gold rescue. At a press conference, with
NYPD chief Bernie Kerik right behind him, Rudy says that "yes,"
they did find it. He then goes on to say, with a very large smile,
"I think we have most of it, I'm not sure we have all of it."

Most of it huh? What
happened to the rest of that very heavy precious metal? It was in
the basement so it shouldn't be scattered. If anything, it should
have all been buried in one spot, in its vault. Even if some of it
melted, it would still be there.

There are stories that
gold carts with gold bullion were found in the basement, abandoned,
showing that someone was already in the process of transporting
gold when the towers started to come down. Who would have been
authorized to do this? Why would they do this when no one knew the
towers would come down?

Missing gold and numerous electronic
wire transfers before the implosions.

There were also reports of large electronic wire transfers
of money taking place just before the attacks. Why worry about
moving electronic assets during a crisis? That kind of financial
data could surely be managed from terminals elsewhere. Why worry
about making e-transfers when other matters of life and death were
more important? Was someone hoping to use the disaster to hide a
trail?

And probably most glaring of all,
someone placed "Put Options" on American and United Airlines, hedging
money that their stocks would make a rapid decline soon. What are
the odds that someone would select both of those airlines just
before 9/11?

The
authorities had vowed to follow the money trail back to the
buyers of the Put Options, an easy trace for our government,
however, they have not released any names to this day.

Whoever was behind the
demolition of the towers also tried to capitalize financially just
prior to the attacks. This also clearly demonstrates obvious
foreknowledge of the event.

Did the government honestly drop
this lead, or just not like the trail that it led to?

More Unanswered Questions

After all of the above,
you have to ask yourself, how do so many incongruities such as those
described get over-looked in the official 9/11 investigation? How do
you cover these glaring facts up and not question the circumstances
of 9/11?

How is it that not one
pilot from the four hijacked planes was not able to send a distress
code that they were being hijacked?

Are we also to believe that
terrorists, who witnesses said could not fly, were actually able to
find New York from above the clouds, many miles away?

How is it that NORAD was
able to scramble jets for 67 incidents of suspected terrorism or
hijackings in the year previous to September 2001 (Sept 00 - June
01), but was not able
to scramble jets in time on 9/11? They were able to get a jet up to
check out deceased golfer Payne Stewart in just :21 minutes. Why
couldn't we get any jets to New York on time? Some of those planes
were AWOL over 40-minutes, yet no fighter jets were scrambled. Why?

And why oh why couldn't we
defend the Pentagon after the first two New York attacks? What type
of event does it actually take for them to go to a heightened state
of defense readiness?

No planes in time for New
York is one thing, but to be caught by surprise in Washington right
after the New York attacks is simply not likely. At least, that's
not the way the U.S. military defense system is supposed to
work. Asleep at the wheel has never been an option in the U.S.
military, and that does include Pearl Harbor. Many now believe our
government was complicit in both events for what some administration
officials believed was a "greater cause."

What are the odds that the
U.S. government would coincidentally be holding separate exercises on 9/11
to defend our skies, or prevent airliners from slamming into large
buildings, all at a time when such an attack was actually taking
place?

There were actually three such drills
taking place that day, all of which served as the perfect guise to
confuse our pilots, in one instance, sending them far out to sea away
from the crime, until it was too late to stop the airliners from
impacting with the WTC. How convenient is that?

What are the odds of these
two events happening together, without someone common to both events
who is coordinating an existing crucial pre-knowledge of each?

NORAD is known to have had at least four major exercises running.

It
was undeniably convenient for the 9/11 terrorists to pull off the
attacks on a day that we were running
four separate air defense exercises to prevent such terrorist attacks. What
a stroke of luck for them, huh? Did they have inside moles in US
intelligence? Did they actually find out about all four
planned defense exercises and then capitalize on the timing of them?

What
are the odds that a hostile foreign enemy could actually get this kind of detailed intelligence,
on allfour exercises, without inside help?

Were the perpetrators
actually foreign extremists as alleged, or was another unidentified
faction responsible, one that went out of its way to blame the
attacks on Muslim extremists, thus creating a new enemy for the
American public to fear?

Conducting the 9/11
attacks on the very same day as the defense exercises was undeniably
a key component in the success of whoever perpetrated this
awful act.

Either the three 9/11
defense exercises were purposefully proposed and planned as part of
a ruse from their inception, or someone else found out about the
drills and exploited the information for their own heinous plan.

Capability And
Opportunity

Ask yourself who could
have masterminded and facilitated such an overwhelming and highly
detailed plot; one that required security info from the military,
the World Trade Center and the airlines?

One
educated guess would be someone with military intelligence
connections in order to capitalize on the three military training
exercises that took place concurrently on September 11th.

Someone also had to be able to orchestrate, or capitalize on, the
power-down situation in the World Trade center in order to wire and
mine the building with hidden demolition charges in the cable
access-areas.

And once again, why is
Osama not noted on either of his FBI Most Wanted posters as being
sought in connection for the 9/11 attacks?

Surely
Osama Claims Victory?

This is a statement
released immediately after 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden to Al Jazeera
News.

"I
have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks
in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a
lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the
killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an
appropriate act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent
women, children and other people."

-Osama Bin Laden
September 28, 2001
Ummat magazine interview

The
Blame Game

Why did the US government immediately want to
blame Osama Bin Laden for the crimes of 9/11? Why suspect Osama of
such a highly complicated and technically precise plan? Why not Iran
or North Korea, or even Russia or China? Why Osama?

To pull this type of event
off, extremely detailed intelligence was needed to carry out the
plan; the type of intel that is available only to nations or sovereign
states. And why not include Pakistan, since their director of
intelligence was alleged to have wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta
just prior to 9/11.

Who in the government
specifically wanted to blame Bin Laden?

Right after 9/11, Bin
Laden sent a message saying he was not involved in the attacks, yet
later, US intel produced a tape that they claimed was Osama Bin
Laden confessing to the attacks of 9/11. The only problem is, the
man in the video looks and acts nothing like the known and FBI
documented Bin Laden.

The face alone ought to be
enough to convince anyone that indeed this is a bad Halloween
impersonation, however the purported Osama also uses his right
hand the entire duration of the video, even though the FBI
claims he is left handed.

Watch the video link below
very closely; he eats, drinks, writes and gestures, all done with
his right hand, not the left.

Pause the
video at 32:44. Watch it again from 33:01 through
33:08. The guy in the video is clearly right-handed, not left.

Why then did the Bush
administration try to pass off the man on the right as Bin Laden? He
looks nothing like Bin Laden. How did the media buy this obvious
farce?

Does the man on the
right honestly look anything at all like the Bin Laden photos you've
seen in the media before?

Now watch the video
that some in the U.S. government are claiming is the smoking gun
that ties Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. It features the alleged Bin
Laden on the right. After watching it, ask yourself how the media
bought this obvious con job? And how is it that Bin Laden is able to praise terrorists that were
not involved, nor ever on the airplanes?

After looking at the FBI
Most Wanted poster for Osama, did you notice that he is not
wanted in connection with 9/11? The FBI only wants him for the August 7, 1998,
bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
and Nairobi, Kenya.

No 9/11 hijackings
are mentioned, no World Trade Center attacks and no Pentagon attack
charges. None whatsoever.

When asked, the FBI says
point blank that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin
Laden to 9/11.

Many military
analysts agree that the U.S. had Bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan.
Many would argue that there is no way he should have escaped, yet
they claim that he
did. Some would argue he was allowed to slip through our fingers.
Absurd as that is, why would anyone do that? Many contend that he
was killed, silenced so that he could no longer deny involvement,
but kept alive in myth so that the threat could be perpetuated.

According to one top
Pakistani diplomat, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the U.S.
is not even looking for Bin Laden at all.

Pakistani President
Musharraf stated long ago that Bin Laden was dead. Former Pakastani
leader Banazir Bhutto said that Osama had been murdered. She was
then silenced in an assassination that reeked to many of CIA/Mossad
involvement. Many governments reported Osama's death. Bin Laden was
thought to be dead in December of 2001.

One undeniable truth is
for certain, with the myth of Osama still at large, the "bogey-man"
was
alive and well to terrorize our fears. The ever pervasive "War on
Terror" had its super-villain and could reign happily.

Update Note:Despite the
numerous accounts of Bin Laden's death,the Obama administration
tried to say it had him killed at the beginning of May 2011.
Needless to say,
few believed the political ploy.

Alleged Terrorists: Alive
And Well

Is it possible that what we've been told about 9/11, isn't really as it
happened, or what we truly understood it to be?

Is it really possible for
nineteen terrorists to outsmart the CIA, FBI, US Air Force, NORAD,
Boston Air Traffic Control, and both airline security checkpoints?
All nineteen? Without anyone getting caught?

How was it that our
intelligence services were able to immediately identify all of the
middle-eastern hijackers when their names were not on the official
passenger lists?

And
how do they know it was really nineteen terrorists, when at least five, and possibly as many
as nine of the alleged
terrorists, have already been found or reported to be alive by the media,
apparently living
to this very day in Saudi
Arabia and the Middle East? That's right, at least five of
the hijackers have been confirmed to be alive and living in the
Middle East. The men have
already been found by the
media to still
be alive, with some media sources reporting up to nine
alleged hijackers
still alive.

Colonel Anthony Shaffer and Captain
Scott Philpott testified on Operation Able Danger, an
intelligence operation which identified Atta and others as being in
the U.S. long before 9/11, but sadly that information was ignored by
the 9/11 Commission.

So if these middle
eastern men weren't responsible for the 9/11 event, why then did our government
immediately claim it was radical Muslim
terrorists? What evidence initially supported that theory?

Officials claimed early on
that they had recovered an incriminating passport on the sidewalk,
just below the twin towers. How is it that the paper
passport book of one alleged terrorist somehow survived the
gargantuan fireball (that they claim was hot enough to melt steel) and fell innocently
to the ground below to be conveniently found in that massive pile of
rubble?

And how is it that such a
passport could be found when the person who it belonged to wasn't
even there, a person who is still alive and well to this very day,
living in the Middle East?

That passport story died
down real quick after the alleged hijacker was found by the media to
still be alive.

But what about the alleged
passport? Who went out of their way to have an Arab passport made up
and why target those particular identities?

The larger question in all
this is, who had a vested interest in setting up Middle-Eastern
Muslims as alleged hijackers?

The
Israeli Connection

One
of the more alarming events on 9/11 concerned the arrest of five
Israeli men, three of whom were seen observing from the top of a
white moving van, and then cheering wildly as the towers were hit
and later collapsed.

The men were
identified as Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer
Marmari, and Yaron Shmuel. They admitted to be Israelis and all five
worked for Urban Moving Systems company of New Jersey. Two of the
men were said to be agents of Mossad. Two other employees, Roy Barak
and Motti Butbul, were also arrested later. It was later reported
that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to the van as if they had detected
explosives.

A different van was
reported to be exploded in traffic that day, while another was
stopped short of the George Washington bridge, loaded with
explosives.

Urban Moving
Systems was reported to be a Mossad front company. The FBI visited
the company the day after 9/11 and investigated owner Dominick Suter
who was said to be moving numerous boxes of documents and a dozen
computer hard drives. As suspicious as this had to look, for some
reason he was not arrested. He quickly fled the country.

Why arrest five men
from one company and then not arrest the owner who was caught red
handed suspiciously removing data?

The men were
detained but not charged. They were strangely enough
released after 9/11, all the while many other innocent people have
been held in indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay.

Once
back in Israel, these men revealed in
a television interview that they were there merely "to record
the event."

Question one, how did they possibly know that these towers would be
coming down, when steel framed buildings had never before collapsed
in such a manner?

Question two, why did law enforcement ever release these people if
they were there to record the event? Again, there are people rotting
away in confinement at Guantanamo Bay for much less than that.

Oh
yeah, they were Israelis.

Couple that connection
with comments from former Italian
President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation
Gladio, and told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that
the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that
this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies.

From the Odigo warning to the
celebrating Israelis on the
white van, there was clearly an Israeli connection that screamed for more
investigation regarding advance knowledge of the event, yet the 9/11
Commission refused to mention the connection, let alone follow up with
more investigation.

Why?

There are other disturbing
Israeli connections to 9/11.

For
instance, all 9/11 airports were serviced by one Israeli owned
company, a private security company called
ICTS, owned
by an Israeli, Ezra Harel. It screened passengers before they
boarded US planes. Many of its employees are ex-Shin Bet officers.
The company covered security at all of the airports from which the
alleged hijacked planes took off from, including Boston's Logan
airport.

Many have suggested
that Mossad agents played a huge role in the 9/11 attacks, in an
alliance with rogue CIA intelligence, yet we have never once
questioned Israel, nor our other close ally, Saudi Arabia, where
many of the alleged hijackers were said to be from.

We are so joined at the
hip in a dysfunctional relationship with Israel that it often is
hard to tell who is leading whom. Most would argue that the Israeli
lobby is the one with the stronger political control here in the
U.S.

Israel has been viewed as a huge
beneficiary of the 9/11 attacks, due to the wars in the middle-east
which leave Israel and Iran as the two dominant powers left.

The
In-Flight Phone Calls
What is to be made of the controversial in-flight telephone calls, alleged to have been made from the
hijacked airplanes on 9/11? Whether or not you question the unusual cell
reception at such a high altitude or the long connect duration, one thing
seems most intriguing, the
language used by some in making those calls.

One caller was a son, Mark
Bingham, who
supposedly called his mom and for some strange reason identified himself with
his first and last name. According to the alleged phone recordings,
he says, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." Why would he identify
himself in this manner to his own mother?

Another person, Tom
Burnett, allegedly called his wife Deena and said, "I'm on an airplane that has been hijacked."
One would think that his wife would have already known if he was
on an airline flight that morning, so why not simply just say, "Honey
(or mom)... my flight has been hijacked."

While the signal reception
of the calls is a highly questionable topic for many, the
conversation content sparks just as much controversy.

The intrigue regarding
possible in-flight calls gains the most traction with the alleged calls
from Barbara Olson to husband and Solicitor General Ted Olson. Mrs. Olson was reported by husband Ted Olson to have
made her calls using an airplane seatback phone. Olson
stated on Hannity & Colmes on the FOX network that she had
called collect and therefore must have been using the airplane
phone, because, he said, “she somehow didn’t have access to her
credit cards.”

Two months
later, in a “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture” that he gave to the
Federalist Society, Ted Olson said that his wife used “a telephone
in the airplane to make those two telephone calls.” He
repeated the claim again when he told the London Daily
Telegraph that his wife “used the phone in the passengers’
seats.” He said she called collect because he claimed that
“she didn’t have her purse.”

The planes
require a credit card to use the phones. The process of making a
call is not a quick one as described on the American Airlines
website.

"When
placing a call, put phone to ear and listen for instructions.
Recorded instructions will prompt you to dial "1" to place a call or
"2" to select a language."

"Slide
your credit card through the side of the phone and then dial
00 + country code + area or city code + number followed by the #
key."

"When
calling the United States dial 00 and the country code 1 prior to
the area code."

If she didn't have her
credit card, then how did Mrs. Olson make those alleged calls?

The 9/11 Commission
had this to say further regarding the alleged calls from Barbara
Olson to her husband, Solicitor General, Ted Olson on the morning of
9/11:

“The records
available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a
determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two
between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that
all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her
husband’s office.”

If Ted Olson says he only
received two calls, how could the 9/11 Commission say he received
four?

In stark contrast to the
9/11 Commission's comments regarding the calls, during the US
government's trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the prosecution claimed
that none of those four calls made on flight 77 were from Barbara
Olson. The government prosecution stated that each of those
calls were from an unknown caller. It's an interesting claim
since one would assume they listened to the recorded tapes. The only
call that was attributed to Mrs. Olson is at 9:18:58am and was said
to have lasted zero seconds. The call obviously did not go
through.

How
credible is any of this testimony? The witness can't seem to recall
when the calls were made and the investigating body can't seem to
keep track of the witness testimony.

Most
notable of all, American Airlines flight 77 was reported not to have
seatback phones available on that particular flight. This is perhaps
the reason why the FBI and the 9/11 Commission played down the
in-flight calls in the final 9/11 Commission report.

Given the numerous discrepancies in
the testimony, coupled with the available
technology in 2001, many have taken pause to reflect and wonder regarding
the actual authenticity of those alleged calls.

And while
we're on the topic of strange communications, what is to be made of
the cockpit transmissions from the hijackers by the tower?

Have you wondered why terrorists that
were making a surprise attack on the United States, terrorists who
were alleged to have turned the transponders off so they could be
untracked and sneak in unnoticed.... why would they then
purposefully key the mic and broadcast to the FAA and the military
that they had four planes?

Why jeopardize the mission by calling
attention to the entire scope of the plan and thus invite a likely
military shoot-down? Why say anything at all? Why not just continue
with the stealth approach?

Also... if the intent is a flight of
martyrdom and suicide, why tell the plane passengers that they were turning back to the airport?
Why say anything at all? A simple sit down and shut up would
have sufficed, so why lie on a suicide flight?

All in
all, the phone calls and transmissions alleged to have been made
from the airplanes that day still appear to deserve further
scrutiny.

While
we're asking the question of why the alleged hijackers would
jeopardize their mission, ask yourself why they would fly around for
over 40 minutes, just begging for a NORAD shoot down, rather than
going straight for their targets immediately?

That
clearly does not make sense, but then, neither does the rest of the
"official" story.

And "story"
is the key word in that phrase, because the government version reads
like fiction.

Questionable
Evidence

It's interesting to note
that there are a few pieces of tangible, yet highly suspicious, wreckage
from the Pentagon lawn, although the paint markings seem to be too
small for a full-sized airliner. Is it possible that something else
was painted to look like American Airlines flight 77?

Who was responsible for
the casting, direction and final production of the fake Osama
confession video? Who went to all the effort to have that piece made
up, complete with built-in translated subtitles? Who translated this
piece and added the subtitles; a piece that was originally checked
out and deemed to be authentic by the CIA and officials from the
Pentagon?

And for good measure,
throw in the passport of one alleged hijacker, a paper book found at ground zero
that allegedly survived the "metal melting" flaming-inferno of the
airplane explosion. What an absolutely improbable stroke of luck for
the official government story. They could find a paper
passport that survived the fireball, but somehow they couldn't find
a titanium black box recorder with an auto locator ping?

These are but only a few
of the questions that beg to be asked with regards to September
11th. A considerable amount of the alleged
evidence seems to come with many red-flags, calling into question its
integrity and/or genuine authenticity.

The potential for
deceptive or manufactured evidence needs to be carefully considered
when weighing and evaluating the overall significance and importance
of many of the recovered items from the 9/11 event.

As
happened with
the King and Kennedy assassinations, many have already questioned
some of the available 9/11 evidence and its authenticity due to various
suspicions and the fears of a concerted cover-up.

Planes
Vs. No Planes

A debate
currently rages over the video of the tower crash impacts. Some
claim there were no planes at all. A compelling argument exists for
the no-planes theory. For one, the airplane hitting tower two seems
to literally pass into the steel and concrete structure with
absolutely no resistance whatsoever. Watch the video yourself and
see what all the fuss is about.

The plane
does not encounter resistance. Its momentum does not stop, as if it
simply flies through open space.

There is
no primary explosion upon impact when the fully loaded fuel tanks in
the wings hit the buildings. There should have been an immediate
explosion.

Why is there no immediate explosion, or
damage to the building?

Why didn't
the wings break off outside? This was yet another curious instance
where,
on the same day, the wings should have broken off outside, as
they should have at the Pentagon.

The
potential answer for the above photo is the hologram theory,
however, there is a contradiction to a pure holographic effect
being used. That is the video showing the apparent nose of the plane
miraculously remaining intact and exiting the backside of tower
two. If it was a full hologram, this would not happen, nor would it
cast a shadow, as it does in the picture below.

So how can
this be accounted for? The
nose clearly juts out the backside of the tower, fully intact, after
crashing into the building and traveling through the interior walls
and structure of the tower. How is this possible for an
aluminum skinned aircraft?

How does the frail aluminum nose stay
intact after passing through the building?

One
possible explanation could be holographic technology in conjunction
with a missile. The hologram could have been used to cloak the
missile. This theory accounts for the plane's apparent effortless
pass-through into the building, while explaining the nose that
protrudes out the opposite side.

All of
this seems incredulous, but then, so does the notion of mere box-cutters
posing a legitimate threat from a handful of small sized hijackers
who were overwhelmingly outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by the passengers,
as well as plane manifests with none of the alleged hijackers listed
on them, not to mention that they couldn't capably fly, and many who
are still very much alive to this day.

There are
more contradictions in evidence that a 767 hit the towers:

How did a
fully inflated tire found outside, on the street below, manage to
survive the explosion and the huge searing fireball?

How could
the engine that was found on the New York street not be from a 767?

While
we're at it, why wasn't that protruding nose section found?

In looking
more at the hologram theory, there are peculiarities that show up in
looking at the videos in slow motion. For instance, how is it
that portions of the plane suddenly become missing for a frame or
two? See the picture below with the left wing missing. The
horizontal line in the building is not the wing. Watch the video and
stop it before the plane passes in front of the building. The line
is there. The wing drops out momentarily as it passes in front of
the building.

Was the
video of the planes crashing into the towers doctored, to cover a
missile strike, or was some of the video purposely doctored to
create the illusion of no planes? In light of the conflict that has
arisen, both would seem to be legitimate questions to ask.

This
author cannot wholly embrace the no plane theory with
absolute certainty, but it also cannot be dismissed out of hand so
easily. The fact is, there are clearly anomalies with the video. The
question is, are these anomalies real or are they manufactured after
the event to discredit investigators? The video is certainly
compelling and the issue deserves a harder look.

If this type of
technology is available commercially, imagine what our military has.
They always have the better technology held back for themselves, as
a military advantage.

Once again, it is
entirely possible that the video discrepancies noted are
aftereffects of a clandestine disinformation campaign, an effort
to discredit those espousing their peculiar qualities. With an event
as large as 9/11, anything is entirely possible. This author wishes
to reserve total judgment until more information presents itself.

When dealing with the
unexplained, it is many times best to entertain everything in order
not to miss anything. Coldly dismissing possible explanations out of
hand, because they are outside the realm of known understanding,
might very well be as foolish as blindly accepting everything
without merit. The key is to keep an open mind until absolute proof
can be obtained.

The
reality is, when you get right down to it, there are a number of
questions that are valid to ask regarding the 9/11 attacks. There
are so many irregularities and incongruities associated with the
event that one could easily lose track of all the unanswered
questions.

The truth
of the matter is, while the 9/11
truth movement does not yet have the answers for these questions,
they shouldn't worry about not having them. This is the reason that
we need another investigation, this time with independent scientists and
investigators. It is enough that we have troubling questions to ask.
The answers will come.

The main
questions aren't whether there was or wasn't planes, or if thermite
was the cause or not. The main questions that beg for a new
investigation are...

How did
the WTC buildings topple so quickly in ten seconds or less, through
the path of most resistance?

How could
there be so little fire damage and still have both towers collapse;
one in
less than an hour, and another in roughly an hour and a half, with barely
twenty minutes burn time and no lower floors affected?

How could
tower seven have collapsed in similar fashion when no plane hit it,
plus there were no widespread fires to undermine the integrity of
the entire structure. How could the building have collapsed so
uniformly?

How could
an aluminum skinned 757 make the impossible maneuver that it did and
still strike the Pentagon, unbelievably penetrating six 18-inch steel
reinforced concrete walls?

These are
but a few of the daunting questions that beg for an explanation.

The
Planes

While on
the subject of the involvement of the planes on 9/11, there is one
very peculiar note of interest.

Two of the
planes were still commissioned as being in active service years
after 9/11.

Flight 93 was seen at Chicago's
O'hare airport on April 10, 2003 by United Airlines employee David
Friedman. The identifying tail number N591UA was listed for flight
1111. The distinctive tail number is like a license plate and is not
shared between planes.

United Airlines flight 175, airplane
N612UA was also noted to still be in service after 9/11.

How can this be? Surely United
Airlines filed an insurance claim on those planes. There had to be
records filed on their destruction.

Is the
fact that two of these planes were still in service the proof that
holograms or substituted planes were used?

As for
flight 77, strangely enough this plane is somewhat of a mystery with
a very hard to track activity record. Decoded data obtained by
Pilots For 9/11 Truth from NTSB also shows that the cockpit door
remained locked for the entire flight.

Considering that the
9/11 attacks were a mass murder crime, no government agency ever
bothered to verify the planes that were used in the attacks. Neither
the NTSB, the FBI, nor the FAA were ever tasked to positively
identify the aircraft. That is very odd for a criminal
investigation.

In 2009 a Federal judge
ruled that the airlines and other related aviation companies being
sued by surviving 9/11 family members, were not allowed to question
the FBI regarding 9/11.

How bizarre is that?

Airline

Flight #

Tail #

Event

American Airlines

flight 11

N334AA

North Tower WTC 1

United Airlines

flight 175

N612UA

South Tower WTC 2

American Airlines

flight 77

N644AA

Pentagon

United Airlines

flight 93

N591UA

Shanksville, PA

Airport

Location

Logan International

Boston, MA

Dulles International

Washington, DC

Newark Interational

Newark, NJ

Writer
Vincent Sammartino from the website WingTV.net wrote,

"As
everyone who is involved in exposing the 9-11 cover-up knows,
nothing concerning 9-11 is as it seems. Whether it's the magic jet
that our government told us crashed into the Pentagon, the obvious
missing jet at Shanksville (Flight 93), the three perfect
demolitions of the World Trade Center towers, or the fact that Arab
hijackers are still alive and their supposed ring leader Osama bin
Laden has the ability to change his facial features at will.
Nothing, I repeat, nothing about the government/controlled media
version of 9-11 makes any sense."

Amen to that.

To anyone looking into the matter of 9/11, it seems clear which side
of the story is the real conspiracy theory.

In the
simulations showing the plane's crashing into the WTC towers, they
leave out details there as well. The thick concrete flooring has
been conveniently removed. Simple objects such as airplane and
building contents are also left out to make their proposed scenario
model fit.

In the
simulations showing the pancake collapse theory they take out
essentially one of the major supporting features of the
buildings, the exterior exoskeleton frame! It supported over 40% of
the load on those buildings. It's curious as to why someone felt it
needed to be left out.

The
interior core was said to be very solid and could not have been
compromised by a simple plane crash, nor mere jet fuel (glorified
kerosene). The NOVA tower collapse simulation is biased to show a
collapse that could not have physically happened as it did on 9/11,
at least not without leaving the exterior walls out.

The point
to all of this is, someone is going to a lot of effort to go out of
their way to manufacture an explanation that even their own
computer models do not want to contend with. They know that if those
missing components are included into the animation calculations,
then the official explanation for the WTC and Pentagon damage will
not be supported by the results of their animation.

An Organized
Cover-Up?

Why would
the government classify the 911 emergency tapes from New York and
Washington DC? What could possibly be so damaging or sensitive to
our government that we can't listen to the recorded tape from
dispatchers and first responders talking?

What was
so bad about air traffic control conversations that the tapes had to
be cut into pieces and taken to separate trash cans?

What is so
bad about the Pentagon crash that they can't show us any of the
video footage of the actual crash? With all of the numerous security
cameras mounted around and on top of the Pentagon, our government,
for some strange reason, still has not released clear close-up video
of the attack to this day. It's apparent that they have plenty of
video. Why they've chosen not to release it is the big question.

The White
House resisted an independent public investigation right from the
start and has ever since then tried to hide evidence and cover-up
the real truth of what happened.

The
dichotomous conflicting testimony of government witnesses, the
refusal to release key evidence and the glaring omissions from the
9/11 Commission Report are enough in itself for anyone to ask if the
public is being dealt with fairly on 9/11.

Polls Finds Americans Suspect Government

An early poll from Scripps
Howard/Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans
suspected that government operatives helped or were complicit in the
9/11 terrorist attacks. Over 100-million Americans were already
thinking that
shady, unscrupulous factions within the U.S. government were somehow involved in
9/11.

1/3rd of Americans suspect US
complicity in 9/11.

The reason cited, so that
the United States could go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq for gas
and oil.

Right from the start, over 16% of
Americans wondered if secretly planted explosives were the real reason
for the WTC destruction.

Twelve percent suspect
that the Pentagon may have been struck by a military cruise missile
instead of flight 77.

This suspicion of
U.S. involvement in 9/11 is slightly higher (42%) than the 40 percent who
suspect officials in the government were directly responsible for
the assassination of President Kennedy.

Perhaps
the most telling poll came from a 2006 CBS/NY Times poll that
found that 81% feel the Bush-Cheney administration is hiding the
truth, or lying about it. Only 16% of those polled believe the
official government story of 9/11.

Polling Data:

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001,
about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do
you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the
truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are
they mostly lying?

Telling the truth - 16%

Hiding something - 53%

Mostly lying - 28%

Not sure - 3%

This is a remarkable number of people
who do not buy the lie.

As Americans continue
to address the unpublicized facts of the September 11th attacks,
those numbers will continue to grow.

But It's
All Too Preposterous!

A large hurdle that the
average American has to overcome is the fact that any nefarious
organization or covert group within our own government would, or
could, be complicit, or look the other way in such a plan, let
alone actually conceive of such a heinous idea.

Would anyone in our
government ever actually conceive of staging an event in order to
further a political or military agenda?

There have always been
defense hawks on Capitol Hill who are constantly on the lookout for
an event that they can use and manipulate in order to justify
further defense spending, or advance specific geopolitical agendas.
That is the unfortunate state of politics in Washington DC and big
money defense contracts.

The
Project For A New American Century

An uncomfortable and
uncanny result of the 9/11 attacks just so happened to help further
the agenda of a small, extremely far right, group of individuals who
believed that America was at the height of its power and that it
needed to assert itself in the world and take control while we are
the lone super-power.

The PNAC three: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz.

In a PNAC manifesto
titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," doubt was cast as to how
fast these aims could be achieved by a right-wing administration, however,
it was noted that the presence of a "new Pearl Harbor"
would help the public to go along with their plan for imperialism
and power.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

As coincidence would have
it, less than one year after
this select group of neo-con Republicans were placed into offices of high
power, they conveniently received their new Pearl Harbor on September the 11th,
2001. The gateway of opportunity for their brazen plan for US
domination was suddenly now open for exploitation.

Who are some of the
individuals that make up this infamous group of power? The list is a
who's who of the Bush administration, many of whom helped lead us into
the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. (Those with an asterisk are
alleged to hold dual-citizenship with Israel and the US. That's a
huge red flag.)

PNAC
Members In The Bush II Administration

Dick Cheney

Vice President of the US

Donald Rumsfeld

Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz *

Deputy Secretary of Defense (former)

Peter Rodman

Asst Secretary
of Defense

Elliot Abrams *

National
Security Council

Richard
Armitage

Deputy
Secretary of State (2001-2005)

Robert B. Zoellick *

Deputy
Secretary of State (2005-2006)

Paula
Dobriansky

Undersecretary
of State Global Affairs

Richard Perle *

Defense Policy
Board Advisory Comm.

Eliot A. Cohen *

Counselor to
US State Dept

Douglas Feith *

Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
*

Chief of Staff
for VP Cheney (former)

Dov Zakheim *

DoD
Comptroller (missing $2.3 trillion)

Bruce Jackson

President, US Committee
on NATO

Randy
Scheunemann

US Committee
on NATO

John Bolton *

UN Ambassador

David Wurmser
*

Special
Assistant to John Bolton

Zalmay
Khalilzad

US Ambassador
to Iraq

Seth Cropsey

Director Intl
Broadcast Bureau (VOA)

Francis
Fukuyama

President's
Council on Bioethics

Philip Zelikow
*

Head of 9/11
Commission

It's quite easy to
understand how a
focused collective large group such as that, all sharing extremely influential
positions of powerand all with the same ideals, could use an event
to lead
this country in possibly the wrong direction, one that
coincidentally coincides with the stated doctrine of their far
right group.

Other influential PNAC
members are conservative TV commentators William Kristol and William J. Bennett, presidential brother and governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, George HW
Bush senior vice president Dan Quayle and former presidential
hopeful Steve Forbes, to name but just a few.

It was the grand wisdom of
this think-tank to see our nation begin the use of pre-emptive
warfare, something which our country has never publicly stood for in
the past.

With so many from this
far-right group infiltrated and embedded into extremely high
positions of power within the US government, it is somewhat
understandable that so many
have suspected and even openly accused this organization of, at the very least, either
favoring
complicity in the 9/11 attacks, or at the far worst, having a
guiding hand in their fruition.

One other note about the PNAC, Richard Perle
was reported to be responsible for writing Israel's "Clean
Break" policy, along with Thomas Donnelly and
Douglas Feith.
It was written
for the
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).
The "Clean Break" document
is very similar to that of the PNAC's document "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
The two plans go together.

The Clean Break initiative
is all about destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran. In short, total
control of the middle east for Israel.

One thing appears to be
quite clear, that the two documents, Rebuilding America's
Defenses and Clean Break, are apparently
dovetailed together as one plan, which would appear at first glance
to benefit Israel and the US, however, there are some who believe
that the crown is the real power that pulls the strings for both
countries. There is much merit to that allegation.

With so many PNAC figures
that were installed in high positions of power within the
Bush-Cheney administration, one would think this organization and
its members would be under investigation for the outrageous
coincidence of 9/11 just so happening to meet all of their dreams
for a new Pearl Harbor.

The
Shock Doctrine

A clear undeniable
leverage for war arose from the ashes of 9/11, quite possibly, as it
very well may have been intended to. The CIA has done extensive
social studies on the breaking points of both man and society.
Disaster, along with its resulting emotions of pain, anger, sorrow
and remorse, can be a ripe opportunity for those in positions of
power and great wealth, one that, sadly enough for the common man,
can easily be manipulated for corporate earnings and personal
financial gain.

Through our world wars,
our petty wars and our national disasters, the wealthy and powerful
have always seemed to find a way to capitalize on these events and
profit. Once people understand that horrible truth, they will
eventually be more open to fundamental reason during times of war
and national duress and will question and hold accountable those in
positions of power who benefit and gain from our collective pain.

This concept, "Disaster
Capitalism," has been understood by the powerful and elite all
too well for centuries and is nothing new to politics or government.

New Yorkers flee in terror as one of the
WTC towers crumbles to the ground.

Naomi Klein, author of
No Logo, has written a new best selling book called, The Shock
Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Once you understand
the ugly principles outlined by this book, you will better
understand how the PNAC, or others within our government, can
possibly entertain the sanctioning of such horror in the name of
their own ideological concept of progress.

Again, the concept is not
a new one. The only defense for such unbridled avarice and
cut-throat opportunism from a government lacking in compassion and
moral character is simple awareness, to understand what is actually
taking place around you and not be fooled. Once a person or society
reaches that level of awareness, they are much harder to manipulate
by the powers that would try to control them

A scared state is the
easiest sell for criminal authority. Promise the people security
from a perceived evil and they will voluntarily offer their
total allegiance, in return for the disingenuous promise of a
manufactured sense of safety, all nicely packaged by the ruling elite.

The Selling of
War

By all accounts, the
attack on 9/11 was used to sell two wars to the American
people, Afghanistan and Iraq, with a third war in Libya. More than anything
though, it has been used to create a new enemy in the
world.

The fanatical Muslim terrorist has become the new evil,
the new red-menace to
protect the United States people from. In particular, former CIA
operative Osama Bin Laden, along with his once CIA backed and trained rebels, have been made the scapegoats for 911.

It was the United States
who sent
Osama and the Mujahideen to help us fight the Russians in
Afghanistan in the late 70s and early 80s. They were trained and
armed by the CIA. Once an ally, now an alleged enemy with no clear
cut proof of involvement in 911.

There are no FBI
charges against Osama for 9/11. The FBI says point blank, they
have no proof of Osama's involvement.

Is Osama truly
responsible, or merely an easy target to blame?

Many reports have
accused President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld of using the 9/11 event as a pretext for
selling the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Ask
yourself, if all the 9/11 hijackers were primarily Saudis, then why
didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?

Why did we go to war in
Afghanistan and Iraq instead?

If they say because Osama
was in Afghanistan, then ask why we let him get away after we
had him cornered at Tora Bora?

Could the reason for war
possibly have been because of the already drawn up plans for a
Uno-Cal natural gas pipeline to run through Afghanistan, or possibly
because Iraq holds the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? These would
be but two pieces in their overall goal.

The point needs to be
made... we did nothing to Saudi Arabia.

Feigning
The Iraq Tie

Cheney did an
interview with National Public Radio in January 2004, where he said
there was “overwhelming evidence” that Saddam Hussein had a
relationship with al-Qaeda.

A year before, in
September of 2003 on Meet the Press, Cheney said it was at least an
open question whether Saddam had played a role in plotting the
9/11 attacks.

Before that, in
December 2001 in a Tim Russert interview, Cheney said it had been
“pretty well confirmed” that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi
intelligence officials before the attack."

The next thing you
know, the U.S. is involved in an all-out war in Iraq, with all indications of
possibly attacking
Iran next.

After
years of war, President Bush now admits that Iraq had nothing to do
with 9/11.

Although we blamed Saudi Arabian
hijackers for 911, Iraq and Afghanistan were apparently the targets all
along for this PNAC vested administration.

The 911
Commission

The fact that Bush openly and
vigorously opposed an independent investigation into 911 was all the more
highlighted by his first appointment, upon acquiescing to a formal panel.
Henry Kissinger was appointed to head the initial commission, however,
when confronted by 9/11 widows, "the Jersey girls," he was
soon forced to resign when he wouldn't reveal his business contacts,
specifically if any might have the name bin Laden. As it turned out, Kissinger and his legal firm
had a close business relationship with the bin Laden family. That was red
flag number one for the integrity of the 9/11 commission.

Bush then put together a
commission of individuals who were questioned by many as
being politically compromised or had the suspicion of possibly being less than
forthright in furthering a true and honest investigation.

Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean (R) and Lee Hamilton
(D)
were then named as co-chairs of the commission, but with major direction from Philip Zelikow,
a
man who single handedly steered the 9/11 Commission and its entire
investigation. Al Felzenberg acted as the commission's spokesman.

The
9/11 Commission Members By Party Affiliation

Democrat

Republican

Lee Hamilton

Thomas Kean

Richard Ben-Veniste

Fred F. Fielding

Bob Kerrey

John F. Lehman

Jamie Gorelick

Slate Gorton

Timothy J.
Roemer

James R.
Thompson

Conflicts &
Compromise

Co-Chairmain Lee Hamilton,
was the chairman of the House select committee that investigated the
Iran-contra cover-up. He was personally privy to to considerable
evidence that implicated Reagan and (HW) Bush, but he looked the other way
and chose instead not to investigate further. According to Hamilton,
in an interview with PBS Frontline, he openly admitted that he
didn't think it would be in the country's best interest to subject
Americans to another embarrassing impeachment trial. Hamilton felt
it was better to withhold incriminating evidence
for the good of the nation.

So with a crime infinitely more
serious than Iran-Contra, how do you suppose Lee Hamilton felt about
exposing the Bush-Cheney administration, or the PNAC, for
complicity and treason in the 9/11 attacks?

It was discovered thattwo of Thomas Kean's
previous business partners were among those needing investigation
for the 9/11 event, Khalid Bin Mahfouz and Mohammed Hussein al
Amoudi. Both of these men were accused as alleged "financiers" of Al
Qaeda.

Kean sat on the board of directors of
a company having business dealings with financier Khalid bin Mahfouz.
Kean was a director of Amerada Hess Corporation, which did business
with a company that was owned in part by Mahfouz, Delta Oil of Saudi
Arabia.

The real kicker was that Mahfouz's
sister just so happened to be married to Osama bin Laden, so Mahfouz was Osama's
brother in law! This
is officially called "conflict of interest."

To add more insult to
the 9/11 families and those Americans who were expecting a complete,
honest and thorough investigation, 9/11 Director Philip D. Zelikow
served on George W. Bush's Presidential transition team and also had
previously worked very closely with U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice.

So much for a fair and
impartial investigative commission.

Zelikow Held The Real Commission Power

Zelikow, a high-level national security adviser to both
of the Bush administrations, was
appointed by President George W. Bush as the
commission's Executive Director and he played a major role in what could
and couldn't be seen by the other members of the commission. He set the entire commission agenda. He also picked the areas to
investigate, chose which witnesses to speak with and also personally
selected which evidence would be allowed. He controlled the entire
investigation from start to finish.

More
troubling about Zelikow is that he
was the 1998 author of
'Catastrophic Terrorism - Imagining the Transformative Event.' Add to
that the fact that his college thesis dealt with creating and exploiting public historical
myths.

These are undeniably very disturbing conflicts, to qualify someone
with such a background to head
up an
unbiased and objective investigative commission.

Zelikow also had personal conflicts of interest, with
his very close ties
to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, but also to key PNAC members Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

The worst
of it is, Zelikow had the outline for the 9/11 report already
written even though the
investigation was just getting underway! Since when does that happen
in a criminal investigation? He was either psychic or he had a pre-arranged
false story that he was told to peddle, independent of any facts or
truth that might emerge from the investigation.

He also tried to insert false
information into the final report about an Iraqi-9/11 connection. He
said that the real threat from Iraq was to Israel. And we thought
they were worried about protecting the U.S.

Zelikow told the Washington Post that
he was concerned about the spread of “conspiracy theories” about the
attacks, which he described as pathogens.

“Our worry is when things become
infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination,”
Zelikow says. “Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public
understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger
body.”

According to Zelikow, the Kean
Commission discussed many of the 9/11 theories, but did not address
them in the final report. “When we wrote the report, we were also
careful not to answer all the theories. It’s like playing
Whack-A-Mole. You’re never going to whack them all.”

Zelikow, later told the Washington
Post that there was no need to release the Washington DC CCTV
surveillance footage that showed the Pentagon crash.

Why would he say this?

These security
video tapes have never been shown to this day.

Phillip Zelikow indeed played an
infamous roll in shaping the official narrative regarding the 9/11
event.

A Bogus Investigation Without
Blame

One of the more ominous and troubling
statements coming from the commission was from Lee Hamilton who
said, “We’re not interested in trying to
assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s
responsibility.”

Say what? Seriously? An investigation
without assessing blame?

What kind of investigation was this?

Why no blame for 9/11?

Why withhold key evidence?

If all of that wasn't bad enough,
President Bush then imposed a time
restriction of only 18 months for the murders of 3,000 innocent people and perhaps the
most serious investigation ever in United States history. Why?

If you're
searching for the truth in an organized conspiracy, why would you
purposefully limit and restrict the amount of time in which the
authorities could investigate the crime?

The Bush administration
actually did just that!

When Bush said he didn't
want an independent investigation into the attacks of 9/11, he appears to
have been very serious about that.

What type of legitimate murder investigation
does
not seek the identity of the murderers and their accomplices?

The 911 "omission" strangely
enough missed all of the following major points in its alleged search for the truth.

Missed conflicting testimony of
Mineta & Hyde regarding Cheney.

Never asked Rudy Giuliani who
warned that buildings would fall.

Never questioned the fall of
World Trade Center 7.

No mention of Sibel Edmonds
testimony on government 911 knowledge.

No testimony from William
Rodriguez or Barry Jennings regarding bombs

Why did the 9/11
Commission mention absolutely nothing about the WTC 7
destruction? FEMA was able to acknowledge the event, yet the 9/11
Commission felt it unworthy to even mention in their report.

Why did Bush set limits on
the number of commission members who could see the actual evidence
or ask questions about it?

Wouldn't you want your
entire investigative team to look at all the evidence together? Why
limit the evidence to only a few select members and then restrict
what they could say about it to other members, as well as the media?

Why did others testifying
have to be under oath, yet Bush and Cheney were both exempt from
that? Neither Bush nor Cheney appeared before the commission under oath.

Bush and Cheney also
didn't have to appear separately before the 9/11 Commission, as they
were specifically asked to, much like other witnesses
were. They both refused to do so. Upon demands from the White House, they were both allowed to testify together, to which some have argued was nothing more
than a concerted effort to keep their stories straight and facts together.

From all that went on,
or didn't go on, the claim of a thorough investigation to seek
the truth of September 11th is hard to qualify.

The Commission closed
on August 21, 2004.

Members of the commission
have now said they feel they were set up to fail.

The CFR
Connection

The
next affront to a proper investigation came with the naming of the
commission members. Five of those ten members just happen to be
members of the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as its
Director, Phillip Zelikow. The commission co-chairs, Lee Hamilton
and Thomas Kean, are also CFR. In all, six members of the 9/11
Commission are affiliated to the CFR.

This is something
which concerns many, since the CFR is often linked to the new world
order agenda, for which 9/11 has been a major catalyst. This is an
interesting coincidence to say the least.

It should be noted that
another
CFR member also just happens to be Bob Graham himself. Just days
before the ten year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Graham began
making public calls for a new 9/11 investigation. Very curious
timing. It was coincidentally just three days before the ten year
anniversary of 9/11. It also came at a time when arguably one of the
most powerful bullets in the 9/11 truth arsenal had been fired with
the release of the damning new documentary
"Explosive Evidence: The Experts Speak Out," produced by the
1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Again, the request from
CFR member Bob Graham is curious for some.

Is another cover-up in
the works?

The 9/11 Ommission

The preface alone to the 9/11 Report should tell you what a sham
the investigation was.

They write that the
commission was frustrated with continual misstatements by
officials from the Pentagon and the
Federal Aviation Administration, so much so that they considered a separate investigation into possible
obstruction of justice for those officials.

"Our staff was exceedingly frustrated with their
problems by the FAA and NORAD. Fog of war could explain why some people were
confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the
after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and
NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

"There was discussion within our staff about
whether or not to investigate about how the inaccurate story became the official
account presented by NORAD and the FAA. The issue was presented to the
commission in May 2004, in an extended memo and presentation. At that time, we
did not have enough time to launch a separate investigation into why the FAA and
NORAD had presented inaccurate information in public, nor was that question
clearly under the commission's mandate."

Apparently they didn't understand their job, because
they were given a mandate, to find the truth. A separate
investigation was not needed to find out why someone lied to them in an already
existing investigation. That is an absurdly asinine remark to make.

"At some level of the government, at some point in
time, this book concludes, there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it
was described .... The (Norad) tapes told a radically different story from what
had been told to us and the public for two years...."

"In the course of our investigation into the national response
to the attacks, the 9/11 Commission staff discovered that the official version
of what had occurred that morning--that is, what the government and military
officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who
knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

"Building 7 was a very special problem. We do not
claim in this report to have written the final truth. ...Is it the final truth?
We'll have to see."

"You can’t answer every question when you
conduct an investigation."

"I don’t believe for a minute that we got
everything right."

"A commission that is created does not have
automatic credibility - we had to work at that, we had to
produce a lot of reports which were recognized, fortunately, to
be professionally done, seriously done - and not out to hang
anybody."

Hopefully you're recognizing the sheer lunacy
in these statements. It's a murder investigation, so
capital punishment (hanging, so to speak) is a given. Pointing a
finger at those guilty is job one. Sorry to burst Mr. Hamilton's
delusional bubble, but yes, all questions are supposed to be
answered in a criminal investigation. Its no wonder that he
feels they didn't get everything right.

"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us
what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. It's
one of those loose ends that never got tied."

A 2006 Washington Post article reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so
deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure
in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for
criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members
and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough
probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law
by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the
bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."

It should be clear to all by now that the 9/11
Commission was not a thorough criminal investigation.

A Real
Search For The Truth?

Most large government
investigations have historically begun within a week to ten days
from the date of the actual disaster, but for 9/11 our government
waited for well over a year, over 400 days to begin any sort
of national investigation.

The U.S. government spent
over $92-million dollars investigating President Clinton, yet
initially spent only a mere $600-thousand dollars investigating the worst attack
ever on American soil. The subsequent 9/11
Commission then spent a paltry $15-million for their follow-up report of the
alleged facts, $77-million LESS than was spent on the Clinton
investigations (for which the Clinton's were exonerated of all
Whitewater charges by the Republican controlled Congress).

Nearly $100-million was
spent to investigate President Clinton, and yet only a meager
$15-million went to find out who attacked our country, killed over
3,000 innocent people, destroyed two national landmark skyscrapers
and dramatically changed life, liberty and freedom as we knew it,
all on one fateful September morning.

We spent $14-million
investigating how the Waco disaster was handled. After the second
shuttle explosion we immediately allocated $50-million to
investigate the Columbia shuttle disaster, yet only authorized a
mere $15-million to investigate the first ever successful major
attack on American soil by alleged foreign terrorists.

Wasn't 9/11 worth more
than that?

And again, why did Bush and Cheney
not want an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks?

Apparently the Republican
controlled Congress wanted to know more about a blue stained dress
than the worst attack ever on American soil.

No Effort For Evidence?

If the government was
truly serious about investigating the 9/11 attacks, why was the WTC
evidence allowed to be destroyed immediately afterwards?

Why were the metal support
beams shipped away to be melted down, before the investigation ever
began? Is this something that happens at a normal crime scene? Why
was it allowed for the biggest crime ever perpetrated on American
soil?

Why weren't forensic
investigators allowed to test the steel and building remains for
crucial fire or explosives evidence? Again, why send it all the way
overseas and not next door to Pennsylvania?

Why did no one test any of
the metal from fallen World Trade Center tower 7, a building not hit
by an airplane that day? Wouldn't you think for sure that government
investigators would want to know a whole lot more on why that
particular building fell?

Where was the instinctive
and passionate curiosity to investigate the worst crime ever on
American soil?

No Government
Accountability

Who in the
military or the government was held accountable for all the admitted
lapses on 9/11? Where are the demotions and firings?

It seems to many of us that the only people held
accountable were the citizens of the United States, who had their
constitutional rights stripped away to protect us from something
that we already had every measure in place to protect us from to
begin with.

Those
safeguards didn't work on ONE day because of numerous admitted
government screw-ups that have never happened before and will
certainly never happen again. So, because of this ONE day where
government people screwed up horribly and were then not held
accountable afterwards, "we the people" have to change
our way of life of 200 years, because of their mistake??

We've been
able to protect our country for two centuries quite well enough without giving up what it stands for. It's high time we
start doing that again.

Demand the Truth

And so through all of this the
trillion-dollar question
remains...
"What really happened on 9/11?"

As a nation, are we all so
angry and ready for vengeance over the attacks of 9/11 that we are ready to accept the incredulous in light of the
impossible?

Have we lost sight of all reason and replaced it with
hatred, ignorance, and a blind faith in unprecedented coincidence?
Numerous times over?

Are we to accept wild, outlandish coincidences, that just so happen to
coincidentally benefit and
fulfill the agenda of the extreme far right and the PNAC to a "T", without any questions?

Is it also possible that
perhaps we've
blindly trusted our media and our government to tell us the whole
truth, without holding them accountable for real facts? Are we so
ready to maintain our normal routine in life that we are willing to
credulously accept official explanations that strain not only the very laws
of science, but sound reason as well?

How much
"coincidence" are we willing to swallow until we finally choke dead the real truth
regarding September 11th?

Myriad questions remain
regarding the attacks of 9/11,
yet the media refuses to develop a spine and ask the hard
questions regarding the government's official story of what actually
happened on September 11th, 2001. So far, most of the public is
silent and unaware. They will remain that way until the media wakes
up and begins to deal in earnest with the undeniable facts and the
awful truth of 9/11.

For many, it is hard to
come to grips with the facts as they actually unfolded on September 11th,
2001 and those people will resist any effort to be pushed from the false
safety and comfortable paradigm that their perceived reality
entails.

While some will argue the
notion that a faction of our government would intentionally harm us
for their own geo-political and capitalist gain is completely
insane, others are not so quick to discount the possibility when
intelligently assessing the substantial facts and numerous
incongruities of the 9/11 event. The evidence, when taken as a
whole, seems to paint a damning picture that is contrary to the
official government record.

It Was A
Conspiracy- Period

No matter what the talking
heads or those that would try to cover this event up would say, the
attacks of 9/11 were clearly a well planned concerted conspiracy.
Period. For anyone to say anything less shows an overwhelming
ignorance to the obvious meticulous planning involved by many in the
plot. Any further argument is certainly untenable and might very
well be questioned as outright complicity, because surely whoever perpetrated
this awful event did "conspire" with a group of people and they did pull
the event off.

No matter who pulled it
off, it was a conspiracy.
Understand that undeniable simple fact.

So why is it okay to be a
conspiracy when it's foreigners involved, or "evil-doers,"
but not when it might be someone from within our very own country?
The lack of intelligent reasoning regarding the use of the term
"conspiracy" truly seems to highlight a mental void in any
legitimate argument. If the term conspiracy threatens to shut
down the mental synapses of some, then perhaps cabal or just
simple criminal activity are easier concepts to understand
for them.

If history has taught us
anything, it's an undeniable fact that criminals do exist in
positions of high political and corporate power.

The big question now is,
who was involved in or knew of the 9/11 conspiracy?

Enemies
Both Foreign And Domestic

The oath of office for our
legislative officials says it best of all, "to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic." Hopefully our governing body will
awake to that astute thought some day soon in the near distant
future.

Understand this... people
in the middle east did not just wake up one day and say they hated
the fact that Americans are free. To the contrary; what they
hate is the freedom and luxuries that we take from them. What they
truly hate is our corporations taking over their countries and
raping their natural resources for our corporate gain.

Maybe when
people understand that simple concept they can come to grips with
the fact that America and George Bush are now the most protested against ever in recorded world history.
That's quite a sad distinction for the champion of democracy to be
labeled with.

To say that terrorists
hate us for our freedom is absolutely the most contrived,
irrational excuse in the history of warfare, with absolutely no
regard for sane sentient reason. It is pathetically laughable and
sadly says much about a perceived lack of intelligence by our
elected officials regarding the general populace.

That anyone could or would
ever offer up such an intellectually deficient excuse is truly
shameful on many levels.

That people would ever buy
such a lame excuse in the first place is even sorrier yet.

Make no mistake about
it, terrorists have not taken our liberties. Our politicians have
done that. If indeed their cerebrally challenged response to
terrorism is to take away our constitutional rights, then it's time
we elected some new politicians who can bring a more reasoned
response to this clearly bogus War on Terror.

When your kids are in
danger, you don't do away with them, you protect them. When our
liberty is alleged to be at risk, we do not forsake it to save it.
Quite frankly, that notion is insanely irrational, if not just
blatant, outright stupidity. It brings to mind the old saying about
throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The rhetoric that we have
to give up liberties to protect our freedom isn't even close to
a rational, tenable argument, because quite obviously, we would then have no freedom left
to protect.

Is this basic fundamental concept
of liberty really that hard for some in Washington to understand?

The
Vague Wars

It's truly hard to keep a
straight face and say "evil-doers" without laughing at the
intellectually starved nature of the term. Why not simply call this
the "war on bad," or the "war on evil." The very
nature of good versus evil has existed since the dawn of time. There
can quite obviously be no timeline for a war on evil.

The term
"War on Terror" is unarguably inept in description and
is essentially insipid
by its basic definition. It is dangerously open-ended and undeniably
too vague in scope for any democracy with any implied notion of a moral center to it.

The "War on Terror" is not a tangible
enemy nor a focused, sentient threat to our country. Those that
harbor evil inside are the real threat, whether foreign or
domestic.

The irony of our terror
war name and our own resulting actions since 9/11 has sadly been missed by our
esteemed Congress and many in our hallowed media. Needless to say,
it hasn't been missed by the world at large.

This blind national
ignorance is unarguably pathetic on all counts and has cost this
country very dearly in international respect and trust, all of which
has been painstakingly accrued through over 200 years as the
champion of democracy.

The repercussions that
have sprang forth from the 911 disaster have eroded not only our
basic liberties, but also our good standing in the world community
as well.

Media
Culpability

For this many
incongruities to exist in the official 911 record, yet remain off limits to the national press, is truly one of the larger tragedies of the War on Terror. For
these truths to be hidden from the public en masse is a damning
indictment of our media and their formerly revered news
organizations. Our media has failed to ask the tough questions. Our
media has been afraid to go against the government. A major ally of
democracy has been lost in this so-called War on Terror.

The United States is the
most over-saturated media market in the world. When 300-million
Americans cannot come to a consensus opinion on a national disaster that
threatens to usurp life and liberty as we know it, then our media
has truly failed our democracy.

The truth is out there.
All you have to do is look. Just don't expect to get it en masse
from the corporate media though.

Big money protects big
money. At that level there is no deferment to moral principles, but
rather only to the principal of big money.

Who
Benefited From 9/11?

The most common principle
of all in the investigation of large crimes is to ask, who
benefited? As Watergate informant "Deep Throat" once told Washington
Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, "follow the money."
That reasoning is most always still valid when it comes to high
crimes, but not all nefarious endeavors are so easily tracked,
especially in cases of state sponsored activity. Power and control
are also an integral part of the equation.

So with these thoughts in
mind, who truly benefited from 9/11?

The U.S. (Strategic middle
east foothold, with oil & gas)

The military industrial
complex (war profits)

Department of Defense
(budgets increased)

U.S. intelligence services
(budgets increased)

PNAC (policies for U.S.
dominance furthered)

Larry Silverstein (Paid
over $4-billion in insurance money)

Bush family (Carlyle Group
investments)

Dick Cheney (Halliburton
war profits)

Put Option Investors (made
fortune off 9/11)

Israel (U.S. fights its
enemies for them)

And who were the biggest
losers from 9/11?

Afghanistan people
(citizens murdered, country ravaged)

Iraqi people (citizens
murdered, country ravaged)

U.S. people
(Constitutional rights taken with Patriot Act)

Those involved in the
profit clearly have no moral scruples, nor any human integrity.
Their avarice will eventually one day be their undoing.

How Could The Secret Be Kept?

Many opponents of the 9/11 truth
movement say that thousands of people had to be involved for the
9/11 event to be an inside job. How could they all keep an inside
job a secret?

First off, the 9/11 naysayers are the
group claiming thousands were involved, not the 9/11 researchers. To
be quite honest, you don't need a fraction of that number to pull
off the 9/11 event. All you need is a small number of people to
initiate the main event, allowing that to be the misguided catalyst
for the rest to blindly follow in an act of defense and patriotism.
All you need would be a small crew with enough time to set up the
three affected WTC buildings, some people on the inside in air
traffic control, as well as a few major figures in government and
the military.

The key is to have top officials in
the loop who possess the power to have people obey and follow them
without question.

Larger events have been kept
secret for far longer than 9/11.

The Manhattan Project
employed thousands, but strict military compartmentalization kept everyone
in the dark, allowing information on a need to know basis for each
particular aspect of the project. Even Truman didn't know until the
death of FDR.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
never happened, but it was the impetus for scaling up U.S. efforts
in the Viet Nam war. Many had to know of the ruse, yet we have only
learned recently that it was now fake.

The F-117 and B-2 stealth
plane projects were kept secret for nearly
twenty years, giving rise to countless UFO sightings that had
nothing to do with extraterrestrial activity.

The Federal Reserve System
has been kept from many Americans since 1913. Many are indeed aware
that it is not owned by the U.S. government, but most people have no
clue whatsoever.

Operation Mockingbird
was a CIA endeavor for the sole purpose of controlling and
manipulating the U.S. and world media. Very few, if any, know of its
existence even now.

These are but just a few of
the known instances where secrets were kept by many for a very long
time. How many national secrets do you suppose still exist today
that we know nothing about?

Many people in general only care
about themselves and their own immediate needs. As a species, we are
quite gullible and often far too trusting when it comes to our
politicians and the government that we allow them to run on our
behalf.

Those in positions of high power and
our military surely laugh at the notion that secrets and clandestine
events cannot be withheld from the greater public.

Secrets can be kept and are
being kept to this very day.

Define "Patriotism"

Much has been done by the
Bush administration to question our patriotism when it comes to
asking for the truth regarding 9/11 or its resulting war for oil
and profits in Iraq. The McCarthy-era red-scare communist
finger pointing pales sorely in comparison to the clearly directed
effort to undermine any inquiries into 9/11 or the Iraq war.

Remember the infamous line
that sent shockwaves throughout the world, "Either you are with
us or you are with the terrorists." That doesn't leave much room
for public dissent and that's exactly why that master stroke of
devious marketing was employed. That public stance was carefully
crafted to squelch public outcry by implanting the fear of being
labeled or branded a terrorist sympathizer.

Quite sadly enough, It
worked.

Americans know better than
that and need to stand up to that kind of bully rhetoric.

A real patriot
doesn't turn a blind eye to injustice against the people. A real patriot expects more from
their
government and the media. A real patriot questions their government.
A real patriot holds the government and its elected representatives
accountable for their actions, while serving at our discretion. A
real patriot seeks the unbiased truth, no matter which party
it may favor.

It's time now it seems for
many to examine their own definition of "patriot." It's time
to stop being gullible and quit
accepting ludicrous explanations not based in scientific fact or
reason. It's time to start
asking tough questions to get some honest answers, based with
real facts, regarding 9/11.

Since 9/11 the government has tried
to define who is a patriot and who is not.

Putting a political party
or other organization before your country could be argued by many as treason. We exist
together, as the United States of America, not the the
Democratic National Caucus or the Grand Old Party, nor the PNAC. We are
together, as Americans.

As the old saying goes,
"United we stand, but divided we fall."

Taking Our Country Back

At this point, it's not a matter of
losing our country anymore. it's a matter of winning
it back. Too much has already been taken that we need to regain.
Americans first need to understand the depth and scope of the coup
that has taken hold in our country. A tremendous ideological
struggle is currently raging in this nation, much to the dismay of
many and sadly enough, the ignorance of even more.

Taking our
country back means no more Patriot Act. We're not stupid. We
don't have to give up our rights to protect our freedom. What is
there to live for after that? With no civil rights, all we're doing
at that point is preserving property and commercial interests. Is
that our America? We want a congress that supports our
constitution, as it was intended. Give us back our freedom. Give
us back our liberty. Give us back our constitutional rights that our
forefathers paid for with their own sweat and blood.

Americans need to look to
alternative forms of news to get an honest perspective and clearer
view of the real events happening in our country. Gone are the days
of diverse ownership, propagating thoughtful insight and balanced
political opinion, with many productive viewpoints.

When six large
corporations now control the entire news media that we depend on as
a watchful guardian for a successful democracy, the inherent danger
becomes possible for only a half a dozen men to collectively shape
the news and political views of an entire nation.

Americans need to become
fully aware and then stand up and fight back for their
constitutional rights and the country and principles that we were
all raised to believe in, for liberty and justice for all.

Just Say
NO

If you want the real
America back, with all that it truly stands for, then say no
to fascism and corporatism and say yes for the intents and efforts
that our forefathers so painstakingly fought for, individual freedom and
true democracy, of the people, by the people and for the people.

Say no to the Patriot Act
for stealing our precious constitutional rights, for making a
mockery of habeas corpus and allowing our government to squash human
rights and kill individuals with no legal repercussions or political
consequences.

Say no to political oppression and government tyranny and say yes
instead for individual freedom and liberty and the constitutional
rights to protect this most revered concept of a true democracy.
Start questioning the ongoing civil and human rights violations by
this administration.

Say no to HAVA and the mandatory electronic voting that
has secretly stolen the most fundamental and sacred tool of our
democratic process, fair and honest elections.

Say no to the corporate
pillaging of foreign countries and their natural resources and the
forcing of corporate will on their people. Say no to corporations
who also bilk us for hundreds of millions in profits, yet go off-shore to
avoid paying their fair share of tax back into the economic system
they've just pillaged and exploited.

Say no to a court system
that maintains the rights of corporations over the humanitarian
rights of individuals, usurping the original intent of our founding
forefathers and making a mockery of a true democracy.

Demand A
New Investigation

With a new administration
coming in for the first time since 9/11/2001, many Americans are
demanding that the 9/11 investigation be re-opened, with all
domestic leads and tie-ins investigated to the fullest. What the
United States doesn't need is another cover-up for the sake of
national security or to prevent U.S. shame and embarrassment among
the international community. A full and thorough investigation
needs to be completed, no matter which where it leads and no
matter who it involves, US or foreign.

When a
crime has been committed, the American judicial system doesn't say,
"Well, we're just going to let this go and get on with the
community recovery instead. It's too important for the city to heal
right now, rather than bring up painful memories or hold accountable
the culprits responsible for this terrible crime."

Our
justice system clearly does not allow for that and we expect
nothing less in the city of rats and scoundrels, Washington DC.
We the people want and deserve a complete and thorough
investigation.

It's Time
To Make A Stand

It is time to unite as a
nation and take a stand for our Constitution. It is time to start being a real patriot and
seek the truth, no matter what your political affiliation may
be or where the truth may lead.

It's time to win our
country and our freedom back. It's time to stand up for the United
States Constitution and our most cherished Bill of Rights.

It's time to stand up for
America.

In the U.S. we all know
what that means, deep down inside, and we all know what those values
truly are.

Standing up for America
means not being afraid to express your political opinion, to speak
out in public, or talk openly with friends. Standing up for America
means contacting your elected officials and our media to let them
know how you feel on the issues before us, or to patriotically call
them out when they are clearly out of line.

In this modern day, it's
easy enough to pick up a phone or send an email with very little
effort, so take advantage of this electronic convenience by calling
or emailing to express your patriotic feelings. Shape your
world. Be a part of the democratic process.

When weighing the events
of 9/11, please do not let an apparent false flag operation, driven
by a rogue group of neo-con politicians, redefine our moral compass
as a nation, nor our cherished civil liberties for its citizens.

The call to action is now;
stand up for America and
the principles that America used to stand for. Stand up for America
by taking our country back, while you still have the liberty to
do so.

The following are to be
recognized and commended as true American patriots and heroes for
having the courage to speak out on 9/11:

Former
Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura

Former
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

Former
Congressman Curt Weldon

Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Congressman Ron Paul

Norman
Mineta (DOT)

Coleen
Rowley (FBI)

These
notable figures have courageously lent a powerful voice for 9/11
truth. Former DOT head Norman Mineta bravely told the truth to the
9/11 Commission, raising serious questions regarding the events as
they unfolded on 9/11. FBI agent Colleen Rowley stood her
ground over alleged bureau stonewalling on particular terrorist investigations.

This article is an open
work with ongoing research and will expand in content and scope as more facts and further
evidence continue to come forth from the investigation of 9/11.

Bookmark
this page. Please pass the link on to friends who think for
themselves.

To
save the contents of this entire article, in Windows Explorer, go to
File and then select Save As. Select a folder to save in and then
hit the Save button.

Questioning The US Government Reaction To 9/11

Statistics show that perhaps the
US government has gone overboard in its reaction to the "War on
Terror."

In 2004, 1,907 people were killed
worldwide in terrorist related incidents, of which only 68 were
Americans.

A look at mortality statistics
reveals that twice as many people die from peanut allergies than
they do from terrorism.

Coronary heart disease is the leading
cause of death in the U.S., killing roughly 450,000, however, in
2007 the U.S. spent a mere $3-billion on research for heart disease,
compared to 54% times that amount to fight the so-called "War on
Terror."

For the record, heart disease
kills 6,600 times more people per year than terrorism does.

The average person is more likely
to die in a lightning strike than they are from a terrorist attack.

Despite the overwhelming statistics
against the odds of dying from terrorism, an act that the U.S. and
western nations clearly foment on their own, we have spent trillions
to fight the so-called "War on Terror."

As for the open-ended and nebulous
title, how do you conduct a war on "bad?" That's essentially what
their insipid title connotes, a "War on Evil."

Seriously, when is that ever going to
end? And that's exactly the point. They want this to go on forever,
hence the ambiguous name.

Source: Zeitgeist
film

What You Need To Understand About 9/11Over 60 Points To Reconcile From The September 11th EventNewsFocus.org, by Tim Watts 082809

Supreme Court appointed
President George W. Bush was neglect in his duties on 9/11. He said he
already knew that a plane had hit the World Trade Center before he
went into the Florida classroom (Booker Elementary), yet
he
said and did nothing when Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him
in certain words, "The second tower has been hit. America is under
attack." He decided to stay seated in the classroom and kept reading
"My Pet Goat" instead.

The WTC fires were small and
isolated and did not consume the buildings from top to bottom. They
were reported as isolated and capable of being put out with only one or
two hoses.

The FDNY
dispatch
tapes were classified after 9/11 to hide firefighter accounts of no top
to bottom burning in the WTC towers. The
tapes prove there was no
widespread top to bottom burning of either building.

The first time ever that a steel high-rise building was alleged to
collapse was on 9/11. Not only did we have the first ever steel high-rise destruction from fire, but three steel-high
rise buildings all coincidentally fell for the first time ever. What are the
odds?

Active
Nano-thermite (thermate),
an extremely high military-grade explosive, was found in many of the samples
of the WTC dust and debris.

Liquid steel was found in the WTC basement,
still molten and red hot for five to six weeks after September 11th.
["As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running." -Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer,
WTC.]

WTC 1 (hit at 8:46) burned for 102
minutes, yet WTC 2 (hit later at 9:02) burned only :56 minutes, but somehow
WTC 2 fell first. How does this happen, especially when the fuel
burned off immediately in the fireball and there was no top to bottom
burning, of either building?

The China CCTV tower also
burned
far hotter and
also much longer than either WTC 1 or 2, over six hours, and yet, like the Madrid Windsor
tower, it also did not
collapse.

No molten steel was ever found in either
the Windsor tower, nor in the Beijing CCTV building, despite much longer
burning and intensely hotter fires.

All three WTC buildings dropped
at near free fall speed, with very little or no resistance at all, as they
passed directly through their own core structure.

WTC 7 dropped
symmetrically,
just like WTC 1 and WTC 2, yet no plane hit it. There were never
any reports of the emergency generator tanks exploding.

Dead bodies were reported in building 7, even
though it was evacuated before any of the other building collapses. (Testimony of Barry Jennings,
emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority.)

The 9/11 Commission made no mention
of the WTC 7 destruction in their
final report. Why omit details of a third
building that fell like towers one and two?

Debris and
body parts were
found
on high-rise rooftops, hundreds of feet from the World Trade Center. If the
buildings fell downward, how did the debris and body parts blow upwards and
out, away from towers one and two?

Officials mysteriously made it
illegal for the public to photograph the WTC ground zero destruction after many questionable photos
began to arise. The
camera ban came by order of then mayor Rudy Giuliani. Taking pictures
was no disrespect to the families who lost loved ones, as claimed by
Giuliani.

WTC crime scene material
building evidence was
shipped away to China and destroyed before
any forensic investigation could take place, especially when the steel
capitol of the world was next door in Pittsburgh. So why ship so far away? No real crime investigation
gets rid of the forensic evidence, ever.

Insiders placed stock 'put options'on American and United Airlines due to the 9/11 attacks. The FBI still won't divulge who
made the stock calls or
how they knew that these particular stocks (United Airlines and American
Airlines) would be affected. Who were the investors
who made these put options?

Fake Osama tape released to the
media and the public claiming
responsibility for 9/11. Tape was sanctioned by US intelligence, even though
the figure in the video looked nothing like Osama and was clearly
right-handed. (FBI says he is left-handed on his
wanted poster. They also do
not implicate him for 9/11.) Who found the video? Why did US intelligence
claim it was Osama when it was an obvious phony tape?

Many of the alleged 9/11
hijackers are
still alive, calling into question who was actually involved
in the attacks. How could some within the government falsely accuse these
individuals? If their names weren't on the passenger lists, how did the FBI
immediately come up with the names and the photos so quickly? How were the
terrorist cars found so quickly if their names weren't on the airplane
manifests?
Nine of the alleged hijackers are said to be
still alive.

Newsweek published a
report
with an interview of Mohamed Atta's dad who said that he was called by his
son the day after 9/11. He claims that his son was later killed by the
Israeli Mossad.

No black boxes were ever
produced from the 9/11 rubble, despite being nearly indestructible, made of
titanium, fireproofed and all having electronic locators. (Some news
accounts claim
they were found, but those reports were then quickly
refuted.)

An airplane
jet engine was found in the WTC
debris that does not match the airliners that were alleged to have struck
the buildings.

An airplane
wheel hub was found in
the Pentagon debris that does not match the alleged airliner to strike the building.
They also found a
turbofan that does not match up with a 757.

A few
suspicious pieces of alleged fuselage found on the Pentagon lawn,
however they had the wrong paint scheme for American Airlines. Their planes
are silver based, not light blue. Also, the white stroking was not the
correct size.

Pentagon officials described the
distinct odor of "cordite" lingering in the air. Cordite is a military
explosive.

Like Bush, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld was derelict in his duty on 9/11. Rather than carrying out
his explicit duty to coordinate a strategic defense during an attack on
American soil,
he went
outside to assist on the lawn. This was clearly not his duty in a
national defense emergency.

The Washington, DC emergency
dispatch tapes are still being withheld from the public. Why?

Why were no wing marks
left on the Pentagon front wall? No wing debris was found on the lawn, nor any wing
markings on the face of the building. How did the windows stay intact
around the impact hole?

How does a hollow aluminum
skinned aircraft, traveling at far less than mach speed, puncture three
rings of the Pentagon, busting through five very thick steel
reinforced concrete walls?

Eyewitnesses, including
two off-duty Pentagon Police officers, claim that the object that hit the
Pentagon
came from the left of the CitGo gas station, not the right, where the
light poles were knocked over. Did two objects strike the Pentagon,
possibly a smaller plane and also a missile?

Numerous
war game exercises
(at least four)
were coincidentally scheduled for 9/11, all of which served to confuse air
traffic controllers. What are the odds?

Military aircraft jets were not
scrambled until after the attacks (9:35am) even though they had been launched at
least
67 times, within :20 minutes or less, during scrambles from the last year.

NORAD was defeated three times on
9/11. Suspiciously, NORAD missed defending the Pentagon also, after already knowing for
quite some
time of the two prior New York WTC attacks. Our air defenses are much
better than this.

What a coincidence that
pilot guns were banned from the cockpit in July of 2001, a little over
one month prior to the 9/11 event.

Who gave the order to evacuate
the White House if the
Secret Service came to take Cheney away and Bush was
still in a Florida classroom? Why would the Secret Service take Cheney and not
take Bush? Who gave these orders?

Why were the
bin Ladens allowed
to fly out of the U.S. on private jets the day after the 9/11, especially
when all other air traffic was grounded? Why the hurry? If Osama bin Laden
was being blamed, why not ask questions, as happens with all investigations?
They could have been protected well enough in Federal custody.

Who was it that told FBI agent
John O'Neill to stop investigating Al-Qaeda?

How could our
Echelon system possibly miss the communications needed to organize such
a major foreign attack? The US denied having such a system in place for
years, until the EU caught them red handed and exposed the entire operation.
(see also:
Executive Order 12333)

What role did
Able Danger play in 9/11? Is it a disinformation campaign to cover-up
that Atta and others were our guys all along? Why was it dismissed? Did some
capitalize on the convenience of terrorists ready to strike the US?

This is only a short list of
oddities and strange coincidences regarding the 9/11 event.

The Experts Said...

Fire Engineering Magazine... "No
steel building has ever been destroyed by fire. The (World Trade Center)
investigation was a half baked farce."

Underwriters Laboratories... I think we can all agree
that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot
temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would
melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. ...This
story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or
melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel
fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That
fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
--Kevin Ryan,

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) admitted...
“the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse remain unknown at this time.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)...
admitted that due to “the tremendous energy released by the falling
building mass, the building section came down essentially in free fall.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)... asked by a reporter (Jennifer Abel of the
Hartford Advocate) why they did not look for evidence of explosives. NIST
stated: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting
your time … and the taxpayer’s money.”

Notable Quotes:

Let us never tolerate outrageous
conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th; malicious lies
that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away
from the guilty. --George W. Bush, US President

And I remember getting a call
from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure
they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ya know, we've had
such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it.
And they made that decision to pull, andthenwe
watched the building collapse.
--Larry
Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder

During
the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young
man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is 50 miles
out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to 'The plane is 10
miles out' the young man said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still
stand.' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said,
'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'
--Norm Mineta, Secretary of Transportation

I
was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I
have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government
within the United States. The United States should try to trace the
perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make
the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity.
That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ...
The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority
is Israel, not the United States. --Osama bin Laden

Of Course President Bush knew about the
impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people
because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed
Osama. --Colonel Steven Butler, Defense Language Institute,
Monterey, CA, May 26, 2002 (BBC
article)

It is said that the United States had
over 50 warnings of impending terrorist attacks, yet the
Bush administration sat idly by and did nothing to prevent
them. Ask yourself, why?

Many now say the Bush administration did
do something, they positioned themselves to manipulate
and use the event to bring about more Federal power over
the people and to neuter the Constitution through the use
of...

Patriot Act

Patriot Act II

Homeland Security

Out of these attacks they gained...

More Federal and Presidential power

War in Afghanistan

War in Iraq

Never ending nebulous War on Terror

Trillion$ for the defense
industry

And yet there are still the naive and
ignorant who ask the foolish question, "Why would
anyone or any group within our government possibly do this? What could they
possibly have to gain from the 9/11 attacks?"

WHAT ARE
THE ODDS?

A
Man-Made Event or An Act of God?

THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11

As if there weren't already enough
to digest from the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the one
year anniversary of 9/11 provided yet one more oddity to
reconcile amongst the numerous peculiarities of this infamous
event.

Many people to this day have no
idea that the New York lottery for the one year anniversary of
9/11 actually came up as 9-1-1. What are the odds?

ABC television ran a report and
tried to say that the odds were much smaller than thought to
be, seemingly discounting the incredibly odd timing of this
drawing.

The odds of those three numbers
coming up in that specific particular sequence would have to
be calculated against the following...

That particular day in
September (9/11)

The one-year (1st) anniversary of
9/11

The odds of the anniversary are
wholly separate from the odds of that particular date, 9-1-1.
The one year anniversary is something entirely different. Why
not happen on the 4th anniversary or the 7th anniversary? Why
on the mournful first anniversary?

That one-year anniversary is a
unique event all to itself, due to the number of infinite
anniversaries that will now forever follow Those one-year
anniversary odds must also be calculated as well, to achieve a
true probability outcome for this alleged coincidence of date
and first anniversary.

The mathematical odds, when
weighed against those particular variables, clearly becomes
much higher, if not astronomically improbable.

The evening drawing, 9-1-1, was
clearly obvious to all who actually saw it, but most missed the
significance of the second set of numbers... 3165.

That was the known death toll, at that time, for 9/11.
Now, what are the odds again?

Is it all
possible that another faction of intel might have somehow
rigged the New York lottery, with the hopes of sending a red
flare out to the international community, drawing more
attention to the 9/11 story? Surely if the lottery might be
fixed that easily, maybe there are other things in New York
that could be manipulated as well? People just might start to
consider or to entertain other theories or scenarios when
questioning the 9/11 story.

If the
slightest possibility exists that the evening lottery drawing was
compromised, then there is certainly a distinct chance
that the midday drawing may also have been manipulated as
well.

Was the midday number possibly a hidden
clue as to who the real mastermind was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Was the midday number possibly
a telephone number? Could it have been some other form of
identification number?

If you had the
capability to manipulate the New York Lottery on the
anniversary of 9/11, and you wanted to use both drawings that
day to send a public warning, you wouldn't want to give away
that capability with the first drawing, thus the seemingly
innocuous numbers given first at midday, 833 and 9994.

If 9-1-1 would have come up
first at midday, the nefarious powers that be would have been
alerted immediately, making it much harder to use the second
lottery drawing later that day to send another public message.

If someone was using the
New York lottery drawing to send a red-flag to the world to look
harder at 9/11, it's quite likely they might have also
used the first drawing to hide a clue as to those who were
culpable in the event.

When dealing within the realm
of 9/11, it's clearly apparent that theories beyond the
official explanation need to be fully examined. Based on
the numerous strange coincidences dealing with 9/11, such
covert things are not only
possible, but in many instances, they are certainly more than likely
very
probable.

CHICAGO
(AP) - In an ironic twist, the September Standard & Poor's 500
futures contract closed Tuesday at 911.00 - a day before the
one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

There was some buzz on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange stock index futures trading floor
Wednesday about why that happened, but there were no reports
of collusion or price-fixing.

"It was bizarre, it was
strange, but it wasn't manufactured," said Richard Canlione,
vice president of institutional financial futures at Salomon
Smith Barney. "It was just the rules of coincidence ... That's
just where the market was."

"It just proves the market
God was with us, remembering the day, too," said one CME
trader.

The start of trading
was delayed Wednesday in honor of those killed in the attacks.

Market players noted
prices were already moving higher throughout Tuesday after two
prior up days, so it wasn't as if an abrupt change in
direction took place to achieve the numerical equivalent of
Sept. 11.

Some thought perhaps suspicious
activity could have taken place, but most brushed it off as a
"patriotic rally" and didn't see the harm in it.

"I'm always kinda paranoid, and
I find the fact that we settled there kind of eerie, but I
don't think we should dwell on it or read too much into it,"
said Tim Haefke, a stock index futures trader and president of
Top-Notch Trading.

The futures contract
is an obligation to buy or sell a basket of stocks composing
the Standard & Poor's stock index at a set date for a fixed
price.

Bush Extends 9/11 National
Emergency Yet Again

As he did in 2007,
President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another
year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September
14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal
with that emergency:”

Notice:
Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain
Terrorist Attacks

Consistent with section
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am
continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September
14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist
attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon,
and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and
immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist
threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14,
2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that
emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008.
Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the
national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to
the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be
published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

An interesting point for
consideration regarding the behavior of humans and group conformity.
Those that refuse to look at the truth of 9/11 do not want to be
out of norm with others that they perceive to be "in the
norm."

Editors note: I am not a supporter of
the hologram or no-planes theory. This information is simply
presented to show technological capabilities, more in reference to
the disturbing alleged cell phone calls made. It is presented as
merely food for thought.

Movie Marquee Webpage
Many free documentary films to view and learn from.
Including A Vast Selection of 9/11 Material

The
real problem is our overly entertained society of lemmings;
People who accept the tube as gospel and the truth.Video:From the classic movie Network

The Definition of Conspiracy:

Con.spir.a.cyn., pl. -cies. 1. The act of conspiring. 2. an evil,
unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by
two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret,
unlawful, or evil purpose. 4. Law. an agreement by two or
more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any
concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. (see
conspire)conspirative, conspiratorial, conspiratory, conspiratorially.

A Conspiracy takes place somewhere on this
planet every single day. To disregard conspiracy is blind
ignorance and absolute naive foolishness. Many have died for ideals and
money. Power, greed and lust have done much to try man's soul.

Yet people
still refuse to entertain conspiracy, as if it were
sheer lunacy, but at the same time they truly
believe that evil does exist in our world.

Do they
honestly think then that true evil is simply too
stupid to organize an agenda?

Instances Where The Government
Has Claimed "Conspiracy"

The
definition of conspiracy clearly fits for the following
historic events. Look at these events, not with what we
know today, but rather the official line that was fed to
us at the time.

Sinking
of the Lusitania

Pearl
Harbor

Gulf of
Tonkin

9/11
Attacks

Every one of these events
would have required more than one person to execute the
complex planning that was needed to carry out each attack.
This would undeniably be, by definition, an outright
conspiracy.

The Gulf of Tonkin, which
led the U.S. into the Vietnam war, has now been said to
have been staged, or not to have happened at all, according to Robert
McNamara who was intimately involved.

Why is it okay for the
government to cry conspiracy when they want, yet at the
same time negate the theories
of others when they claim there could be a government conspiracy?

The point here is,
conspiracy, by its definition, is okay when it is
assigned by official sources, but clearly it is not
considered tenable when suggested by those that are not in
a position of power.

This clearly appears to be a
double-standard which can only weigh heavily against
"we the people" when dealing with government.

Per section 802 of the Patriot Act: The
author is indeed an American patriot who supports our Constitution
and the United States of America. The opinions expressed in this
article are wholly the author's interpretation of the evidence and
should not be construed as anti-government, nor anti-American. Terrorism is not condoned
by the author in any
form, whether it be radical extremism or state sponsored terrorism.